Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Totovader]

In a recent YouTube discussion, the user "thewholesoul" claimed that the "morning supervisor" at the WTC, Antony Solto Lomacia, corroborates Rodriguez's claims:


hey toto, i dont see much of a point providing the corroborating testimony as it will not have any impact on your position. however if you are genuinely interested antony solto lomacia was the morning supervisor that day. youtube "New William Rodriguez support story".

link (http://youtube.com/watch?v=k8EQKbWTfMY)

At this point, there's not much I haven't heard of- honestly. But this is not a name I recall ever coming across.

Does anyone recognize this name- maybe it's spelled differently? I couldn't find a single thing on this story.

[Gravy]

It's Anthony Saltalamacchia, and no, he doesn't corroborate Rodriguez's claims, except that there were explosions, which everyone knows. In fact, he contradicts Rodriguez about knowing that the "second" explosion came from the top of the building. From my Rodriguez paper:
Rodriguez believes he heard an explosion in the basement of the north tower an instant before American Airlines flight 11 slammed into its upper floors. However, since he was in the windowless B1 sublevel at the time, he had no way of knowing when the plane actually hit the building. His supervisor, who was with him in the maintenance office when the building was hit, says, "Being inside, we didn't know that there was anything wrong from the upper levels." Source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpaZE5XSfg)



Other things Saltalamacchia contradicts Rodriguez about are that he singlehandedly rescued the people in the office, and that he carried Felipe David out on his back (he had help from others, including Kenneth Johannemann, which confirms those accounts in my paper). No question about Rodriguez's concern for others, his cool head, and his bravery, but Saltalamacchia's account does not support Rodriguez's assertion that there were bombs in the building or that there was an explosion before flight 11 hit.

One interesting detail Saltalamacchia added was that Rodriguez had called in and said he wouldn't be coming to work that day. Saltalamacchia convinced him to come in, since he had a difficult job to do. Imagine how different Rodriguez's life would be if he had stayed home.

[Totovader]

It's Anthony Saltalamacchia, and no, he doesn't corroborate Rodriguez's claims, except that there were explosions, which everyone knows. In fact, he contradicts Rodriguez about knowing that the "second" explosion came from the top of the building. From my Rodriguez paper:


Other things Saltalamacchia contradicts Rodriguez about are that he singlehandedly rescued the people in the office, and that he carried Felipe David out on his back (he had help from others, including Kenneth Johannemann, which confirms those accounts in my paper). No question about Rodriguez's concern for others, cool head, and bravery, but Saltalamacchia's account does not support Rodriguez's assertion that there were bombs in the building or that there was an explosion before flight 11 hit.

One interesting detail Saltalamacchia added was that Rodriguez had called in and said he wouldn't be coming to work that day. Saltalamacchia convinced him to come in, since he had a difficult job to do. Imagine how different Rodriguez's life would be if he had stayed home.

Thanks- proceeding to rip my hair out.

[Gravy]

Thanks- proceeding to rip my hair out.Would you mind sending it to me?

[RedIbis]

In a recent YouTube discussion, the user "thewholesoul" claimed that the "morning supervisor" at the WTC, Antony Solto Lomacia, corroborates Rodriguez's claims:



link (http://youtube.com/watch?v=k8EQKbWTfMY)

At this point, there's not much I haven't heard of- honestly. But this is not a name I recall ever coming across.

Does anyone recognize this name- maybe it's spelled differently? I couldn't find a single thing on this story.

If you notice, that video comes right from Rodriguez's own site, and in fact it's Rodriguez who is interviewing Saltalamacchia. Actually holding a camera and a mic isn't exactly an interview since Rodriguez only asks him to tell his story and nothing else.

Also, what Saltalamacchia does corroborate is that an explosion was felt in what he thought was the mechanical room in one of the subbasements. After this he describes explosions on levels "above" him.

This is truly interesting because if Gravy's slow moving, magic fireball theory is true, why are the sub basement explosions felt first, then higher up explosions felt after, moving up the building?

[Totovader]

This is truly interesting because if Gravy's slow moving, magic fireball theory is true, why are the sub basement explosions felt first, then higher up explosions felt after, moving up the building?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that one type of "explosion" came before the other? Your stretch would seem to depend on whether or not these basement workers would be able to tell when the plane hit.

Please... explain this if you can.

[uk_dave]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that one type of "explosion" came before the other? Your stretch would seem to depend on whether or not these basement workers would be able to tell when the plane hit.

Please... explain this if you can.

Well of course they based it on the time of the impacts because, obviously the first thing anyone does when they hear a very loud Bang! is look at their watch (which they calibrated that very morning) and make a note of the time. Stands to reason, dunnit?

[RedIbis]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that one type of "explosion" came before the other?

I actually listened to the entire interview.

I am not saying anything about which explosion might or might not have been caused by the plane. I am talking about the order (lower to higher) of explosions that Saltalamacchia describes.

[e^n]

I actually listened to the entire interview.

I am not saying anything about which explosion might or might not have been caused by the plane. I am talking about the order (lower to higher) of explosions that Saltalamacchia describes.

In order to gauge which came first some knowledge of when the plane impact occurred is needed. This is not something that is easily determined from nearly 100 floors below.

[Swing Dangler]

If you notice, that video comes right from Rodriguez's own site, and in fact it's Rodriguez who is interviewing Saltalamacchia. Actually holding a camera and a mic isn't exactly an interview since Rodriguez only asks him to tell his story and nothing else.

Also, what Saltalamacchia does corroborate is that an explosion was felt in what he thought was the mechanical room in one of the subbasements. After this he describes explosions on levels "above" him.

This is truly interesting because if Gravy's slow moving, magic fireball theory is true, why are the sub basement explosions felt first, then higher up explosions felt after, moving up the building?

Hey Red, are you aware of any elevator shafts ending up in a sub-basement mechanical room? I'm not!

[phunk]

Well, since sound travels faster through steel than air, and the elevator shaft deflagration was subsonic, it would make sense that they would feel the impact through the structure of the building well before the fireball reached the basement. And when the whole room shakes at once, by default it feels like it's coming from below, because that's where you are in contact with the building (your feet on the floor, your ass on a chair, etc).

There was no explosion below willy, he simply misinterpreted (and later embellished) what he felt.

[Norseman]

Hey Red, are you aware of any elevator shafts ending up in a sub-basement mechanical room? I'm not!

Swing Dangler on his own blog Do The Orders Still Stand (http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/) March 8th 2007:
Car 50 was the only elevator with access from the impacted floors of WTC1 to the sub levels B6 and below

Swing Dangler in a post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3019986#post3019986) written by him on this forum 2nd October 2007:
Car 50 was the only elevator with access from the impacted floors of WTC1 to the sub levels B6 and below

Or are you going to claim that you do not know that B-5 and B-6 inside WTC1 was a mechanical room, that's where Car 50 ends.? But you are among other things familiar with Mike Pecoraro's (http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029) story, so you should know.

[RedIbis]

In order to gauge which came first some knowledge of when the plane impact occurred is needed. This is not something that is easily determined from nearly 100 floors below.

You seem to be missing my point. This has nothing to do with the plane's impact, simply the order of explosions described by Salty(I hope no one is offended by this shortening of the most difficult last name to spell this side of a certain Iraninan president).

He corroborates Rodriguez's order of explosions. First, those below him, then those above him.

[Totovader]

You seem to be missing my point. This has nothing to do with the plane's impact, simply the order of explosions described by Salty(I hope no one is offended by this shortening of the most difficult last name to spell this side of a certain Iraninan president).

He corroborates Rodriguez's order of explosions. First, those below him, then those above him.

It has nothing to do with the planes impact, therefore does not corroborate the claims of Rodriguez (at least any claims we care about).

And you can't just copy and paste the name? Or are you afraid your copy/paste method will misspell it, add punctuation, and then more words?

[RedIbis]

Hey Red, are you aware of any elevator shafts ending up in a sub-basement mechanical room? I'm not!

Now that would be troublesome for the "magic fireball" theorists, wouldn't it?

[Totovader]

Now that would be troublesome for the "magic fireball" theorists, wouldn't it?

Did you bother to take note of Norseman's findings?

Your ally hath deceived you.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I sense a redefinition of "sub-basement mechanical room" coming...

[Totovader]

Just a slight bump for Red and thewholesoul who has agreed to join us in the discussion, here.

[Alferd_Packer]

Hey Red, are you aware of any elevator shafts ending up in a sub-basement mechanical room? I'm not!

Indeed, so the only access to the mechanical rooms was through the stairs, is that it?

That must have been a pain when they had to lug parts up and down.

[brasil]

I finally see a mention of Mike Pecoraro's story, but so far I haven't seen anyone directly address the issue of all the "rubble" and the "50 ton hydraulic press" he says was "gone" after hearing the "explosion." Here's the quote from the link someone provided above:

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

We also have Philip Morelli's story, and although I'm going to have to watch it again, I still find it a little hard to believe that events almost 100 floors above could be responsible for some of the things he observed:

http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html

Now back to Pecoraro for a second. At first I thought a "50 ton hydraulic press" weighed 50 tons (sounded kind of unlikely, but that's what I thought). Then I quickly realized that's a measure of it's pressing power. Regardless, I still find it hard to believe that events at the top of the building could be responsible for completely destroying this hydraulic press. Burnt people I can grasp, but destroyed machine equipment doesn't add up. Here is what a 30 ton hydraulic press looks like:

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachinery.com/img_used_equipment/used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine%20(2).jpg

[Totovader]

I finally see a mention of Mike Pecoraro's story, but so far I haven't seen anyone directly address the issue of all the "rubble" and the "50 ton hydraulic press" he says was "gone" after hearing the "explosion." Here's the quote from the link someone provided above:

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

We also have Philip Morelli's story, and although I'm going to have to watch it again, I still find it a little hard to believe that events almost 100 floors above could be responsible for some of the things he observed:

http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html

Now back to Pecoraro for a second. At first I thought a "50 ton hydraulic press" weighed 50 tons (sounded kind of unlikely, but that's what I thought). Then I quickly realized that's a measure of it's pressing power. Regardless, I still find it hard to believe that events at the top of the building could be responsible for completely destroying this hydraulic press. Burnt people I can grasp, but destroyed machine equipment doesn't add up. Here is what a 30 ton hydraulic press looks like:

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachinery.com/img_used_equipment/used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine%20(2).jpg

What forces are there involved in destroying a hydraulic press that you think would not damage human beings? Or visa versa?

[brasil]

What forces are there involved in destroying a hydraulic press that you think would not damage human beings? Or visa versa?

Jet fuel spilling down elevator shafts, combining with air, and exploding would be expected to severely burn humans with a blast of pressure and heat. I would not expect such an explosion to come anywhere near that required to pulverize a hydraulic press, but I would expect high explosives to have the required blast velocity.

[Totovader]

Jet fuel spilling down elevator shafts, combining with air, and exploding would be expected to severely burn humans with a blast of pressure and heat. I would not expect such an explosion to come anywhere near that required to pulverize a hydraulic press, but I would expect high explosives to have the required blast velocity.

Why would you not expect this? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

. . .pulverize a hydraulic press. . .


Please stop with the hyperbole. It does nothing for you.

[brasil]

Why would you not expect this? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

If it makes no sense to you, then you need to look up the differences between "high explosives" and merely "incendiary" or "low explosives." The latter do not have the explosive power to destroy something as metal and solid as a hydraulic press, even if they were planted right under it, much less originating 100 floors above.

High explosives, such as TNT, RDX, nitroglycerin, C-4, etc DO have the required detonation velocities to do the job. Pecoraro is claiming that the machine shop was reduced to "rubble" and a hydraulic press was simply "gone."

Unless he's lying or mistaken, I can't think of any other explanation for his observation other than the use of high explosives. (I would have to know more about the floor plan of the WTC: could a falling elevator have caused part of the ceiling to collapse, obscuring the hydraulic press and causing the rubble? Who knows....) I just think his testimony points to explosives. I don't find the "debunkers" claims particularly convincing when they try to explain all of the damage that occurred in the lobby and the basements.

[Arus808]

brasil, a 50 ton hydraulic press doesn't weight 50 tons. Its a simple machine that can exert PRESSURE up to 50 tons; the most it may weight is a few hundred pounds, and most are just "H" frame models


http://www2.northerntool.com/product/475.htm
http://www.americanmachinetools.com/hydraulic_press.htm


If they are on wheels, then they are VERY simple to be moved by an extensive force:
http://www.davidreinadesigns.com/hydraulic-presses/


so why wouldn't an explosion wave emanating from an elevator shaft be not be able to knock these presses around?

[Arus808]

If it makes no sense to you, then you need to look up the differences between "high explosives" and merely "incendiary" or "low explosives." The latter do not have the explosive power to destroy something as metal and solid as a hydraulic press, even if they were planted right under it, much less originating 100 floors above.

Again, a 50 ton hydraulic press would only weight a couple hundred pounds. PLEASE get yourself informed about what hydraulic press is!

an explosive force caused by burning jet fuel can shake an elevator but can't move a small hydraulic press?

[T.A.M.]

1. brasil has indicated he knows the 50 tonnes does not refer to the weight.

Now back to Pecoraro for a second. At first I thought a "50 ton hydraulic press" weighed 50 tons (sounded kind of unlikely, but that's what I thought). Then I quickly realized that's a measure of it's pressing power. Regardless, I still find it hard to believe that events at the top of the building could be responsible for completely destroying this hydraulic press. Burnt people I can grasp, but destroyed machine equipment doesn't add up. Here is what a 30 ton hydraulic press looks like:

2. brasil: making an assumption based on what you believe should or should not have happened, while being your right, does not carry much weight here. If you have some science for this particular scenario to show us, that makes the fireball an extremely unlikely candidate to cause the destruction described, now would be a good time to present it.

TAM:)

[brasil]

Please stop with the hyperbole. It does nothing for you.

What's more "hyperbolic:" using the term "pulverized" or what Mike actually said:

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!"

He said it was "gone." Would it make you happier if I said "vaporized?" I think pulverized is a pretty good guess at what he meant when he said it was "gone."
Not replying to the actual question / point i'm making does nothing for YOU.

[Arus808]

These can't be moved by an explosive force?

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/8421/dakehydraulicpressmg9.jpg http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/9838/dakepresstablezb2.jpg

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/5959/pressasp01oh3.jpg

[Totovader]

If it makes no sense to you, then you need to look up the differences between "high explosives" and merely "incendiary" or "low explosives."

That's circular reasoning. You're saying it could only have been from explosives because explosives are not not-explosives.

I understand your claim, I don't understand your justification.

The latter do not have the explosive power to destroy something as metal and solid as a hydraulic press, even if they were planted right under it, much less originating 100 floors above.

Did I say anything about "low explosives" (whatever you think those are).

I asked why you think the forces would be different.

High explosives, such as TNT, RDX, nitroglycerin, C-4, etc DO have the required detonation velocities to do the job. Pecoraro is claiming that the machine shop was reduced to "rubble" and a hydraulic press was simply "gone."

It could have also been caused by elves. We don't have any evidence of elves doing this, however.

Unless he's lying or mistaken, I can't think of any other explanation for his observation other than the use of high explosives. (I would have to know more about the floor plan of the WTC: could a falling elevator have caused part of the ceiling to collapse, obscuring the hydraulic press and causing the rubble? Who knows....)

Who knows? You can't think of any other explanation- and just happen to mention that you have no idea as to what you're talking about?

Again, I'm baffled.

I just think his testimony points to explosives. I don't find the "debunkers" claims particularly convincing when they try to explain all of the damage that occurred in the lobby and the basements.

Evidence isn't convincing to you? That seems to be your problem, not the "debunkers" problem.

[Arus808]

What's more "hyperbolic:" using the term "pulverized" or what Mike actually said:

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!"

If you'd seen one, then you'd understand why it was "gone". all it is either a small steel framed machine on wheels, or bolted to the floor. ITS not that strong. All it would need to make it "gone" would be a force so strong, that it would just destroy it.

Elevators can be shakened, and rattled on the basement floors but can't overturn a press?

And of course, you dont take into consideration that he is only using words to try and convey what he saw. doesn't mean that is what exactly happened

[brasil]

Again, a 50 ton hydraulic press would only weight a couple hundred pounds. PLEASE get yourself informed about what hydraulic press is!

an explosive force caused by burning jet fuel can shake an elevator but can't move a small hydraulic press?

Yes, I admitted that in my first post on the subject (post #20). Try actually reading my posts before jumping to conclusions that I don't know what I'm talking about. I am more than a little aware that I am in the minority on this forum because I don't buy the official story, so I'm taking EXTRA care to make sure I know what i'm talking about.

Mike Pecoraro says that the machine shop was reduced to rubble and the hydraulic press was "gone." He didn't say "moved around." He said "gone" which I take to mean "completely destroyed." Since he worked there, I have to assume he was plenty familiar with the exact layout of the room and whether the press had merely moved.

[Totovader]

What's more "hyperbolic:" using the term "pulverized" or what Mike actually said:

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!"

He said it was "gone." Would it make you happier if I said "vaporized?" I think pulverized is a pretty good guess at what he meant when he said it was "gone."
Not replying to the actual question / point i'm making does nothing for YOU.

Holy crap.

Quote mining- that happens. But completely changing what he's saying? That's particularly low.

Maybe he meant "liquified"? Maybe he meant solidified? Or maybe he meant petrified?

What we do know is he said gone- which is too ambiguous to draw the conclusion that he meant "pulverized" or "vaporized".

Seriously- that's absurd.

[Totovader]

Yes, I admitted that in my first post on the subject (post #20). Try actually reading my posts before jumping to conclusions that I don't know what I'm talking about. I am more than a little aware that I am in the minority on this forum because I don't buy the official story, so I'm taking EXTRA care to make sure I know what i'm talking about.

Mike Pecoraro says that the machine shop was reduced to rubble and the hydraulic press was "gone." He didn't say "moved around." He said "gone" which I take to mean "completely destroyed." Since he worked there, I have to assume he was plenty familiar with the exact layout of the room and whether the press had merely moved.

It could have also been crushed by falling debris. "Gone" doesn't necessarily mean "evaporated". What you take it to mean (in order to justify your claim of explosives) is really meaningless.

[Arus808]

I am more than a little aware that I am in the minority on this forum because I don't buy the official story

sorry, but its very apparent by your posts that you dont even know the "official" story. And you truthers better stop calling it that because it isn't "official". Its the BEST explanation of the events that happened on 9/11/2001 with the EVIDENCE available.




Mike Pecoraro says that the machine shop was reduced to rubble and the hydraulic press was "gone."

Again, LOOK at the pictures of what a hydraulic press LOOKS Like! its a simple machine. It can be destroyed by any force that can send it flying! What are you failing to understand here?

Again, the force can shake elevators and blow off doors, but it can't destroy a peice of machinery that probably only weighs a couple hundred pounds?




He didn't say "moved around." He said "gone" which I take to mean "completely destroyed." Since he worked there, I have to assume he was plenty familiar with the exact layout of the room and whether the press had merely moved.


did i say it moved? You are taking his quotes out of context and taking his meaning out of context. And you forget that he may be using words that HE could only use to DESCRIBE what he saw; it edoesn't necessarily MEAN that's exactly what happened.

Stop quote mining his claims, and stop reading into his claims that he is not alluding to.

[brasil]

That's circular reasoning. You're saying it could only have been from explosives because explosives are not not-explosives.

I understand your claim, I don't understand your justification.



Did I say anything about "low explosives" (whatever you think those are).

I asked why you think the forces would be different.



It could have also been caused by elves. We don't have any evidence of elves doing this, however.



Who knows? You can't think of any other explanation- and just happen to mention that you have no idea as to what you're talking about?

Again, I'm baffled.



Evidence isn't convincing to you? That seems to be your problem, not the "debunkers" problem.

I don't even know where to begin with you because you really have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Had you even just googled "high explosives" vs. "low explosives" and did 2 minutes of reading you would not have tried to call my statement about the differences between them "circular reasoning."

High explosives can blow up a tank. Low explosives cannot. High explosives can cut through steel. Low explosives cannot. The reason for this (off the top of my head) is that the high explosive reaction is characterized by detonation velocities in the millions of feet per second.

A fireball rushing down an elevator shaft from 100 floors up is not capable of reducing a hydraulic press to rubble. Period. I admit that it's possible Mike's judgement was clouded by shock or the smoke, but no one who understands explosives would support the idea that events at the top of the WTC could destroy metal-constructed machining equipment in a sub-basement. It's that simple. Do your research then get back to me.

I bring this up because I think Mike Pecararo's testimony is one of the major holes in the "official story" that no explosives went off in the WTC. I'm still making up my mind about William Rodriquez, however, Pecararo seems to corroborate Rodriguez.... and isn't that the subject of this thread?

[brasil]

sorry, but its very apparent by your posts that you dont even know the "official" story. And you truthers better stop calling it that because it isn't "official". Its the BEST explanation of the events that happened on 9/11/2001 with the EVIDENCE available.






Again, LOOK at the pictures of what a hydraulic press LOOKS Like! its a simple machine. It can be destroyed by any force that can send it flying! What are you failing to understand here?

Again, the force can shake elevators and blow off doors, but it can't destroy a peice of machinery that probably only weighs a couple hundred pounds?







did i say it moved? You are taking his quotes out of context and taking his meaning out of context. And you forget that he may be using words that HE could only use to DESCRIBE what he saw; it edoesn't necessarily MEAN that's exactly what happened.

Stop quote mining his claims, and stop reading into his claims that he is not alluding to.

DUDE, in my post #20 in this thread, I POSTED a link to a picture of a "30-ton hydraulic press!" It looks quite a bit more robust than the wimpy hydraulic presses you posted pictures of. Here it is again since you were too lazy to bother fully reading my post:

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachinery.com/img_used_equipment/used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine%20(2).jpg

[Totovader]

I don't even know where to begin with you because you really have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Had you even just googled "high explosives" vs. "low explosives" and did 2 minutes of reading you would not have tried to call my statement about the differences between them "circular reasoning."

Google "circular reasoning"- understanding the difference between "high explosives" and "low explosives" does not suddenly make your argument rational.

High explosives can blow up a tank. Low explosives cannot. High explosives can cut through steel. Low explosives cannot. The reason for this (off the top of my head) is that the high explosive reaction is characterized by detonation velocities in the millions of feet per second.

All completely irrelevant.

A fireball rushing down an elevator shaft from 100 floors up is not capable of reducing a hydraulic press to rubble. Period. I admit that it's possible Mike's judgement was clouded by shock or the smoke, but no one who understands explosives would support the idea that events at the top of the WTC could destroy metal-constructed machining equipment in a sub-basement. It's that simple. Do your research then get back to me.

There's no need for me to do any more research. I asked you a question, and you have been unable to answer it- instead you've danced around the question and injected your own absurd interpretations in order to avoid the facts.

It's that simple.

I bring this up because I think Mike Pecararo's testimony is one of the major holes in the "official story" that no explosives went off in the WTC. I'm still making up my mind about William Rodriquez, however, Pecararo seems to corroborate Rodriguez.... and isn't that the subject of this thread?

Major holes? If it's one of the "major holes" then how come you have to change what he's saying?

And... seriously- you think a hydraulic press being gone means that explosives were used? For what purpose? It makes no sense. The building did not collapse from the bottom up- and these explosives obviously didn't DO MUCH if they just affected a hydraulic press.

Come on- think it through.

[Arus808]

I don't even know where to begin with you because you really have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
Actually totovader is very much in the know, about what he is tlaking about ; however, you are simply pulling #$#@ out of your #@#@$#.

Had you even just googled "high explosives" vs. "low explosives" and did 2 minutes of reading you would not have tried to call my statement about the differences between them "circular reasoning."yet you can't even bother to read hte NIST report where they found no evidence of ANY explosives used.

Explain that. Dont care if its "high explosives" or "low explosives" where is the eVDIENCE?



High explosives can blow up a tank. Low explosives cannot. High explosives can cut through steel. Low explosives cannot. The reason for this (off the top of my head) is that the high explosive reaction is characterized by detonation velocities in the millions of feet per second.
and has nothing to do with what happened on 911. Who cares what each does. when none of them EXISTED in the towers.


A fireball rushing down an elevator shaft from 100 floors up is not capable of reducing a hydraulic press to rubble. Period. Please back this claim up with evidence; care to source how you came to this conclusion? What is your expertise on judging the explosive nature of jet fuel when ignited? do you know what the equivalent of force of ignited fuel would cause?

No, you are simply ASSUMING this. Your are basing your "assumptions' On the claims of someone who, in the CONFUSION of that day, tried to DESCRIBE WHAT he saw to the BEST of his abilities using WORDS that would convey what he SAW. Doesn't MEAN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT happened.

YOU are reading into his claims that he IS not alluding to.
YOU are also taking his claims out of context.


I admit that it's possible Mike's judgement was clouded by shock or the smoke, but no one who understands explosives would support the idea that events at the top of the WTC could destroy metal-constructed machining equipment in a sub-basement. It's that simple.
and Controlled demolitionists, who work with explosives DISAGREE with you.
Why is that?


o your research then get back to me.WE have. DO your research by talking to an explosives EXPERT. NOT what you assume


I bring this up because I think Mike Pecararo's testimony is one of the major holes in the "official story" that no explosives went off in the WTC.
NO his story is NOT a major hole in the BEST explanation (ITS NOT THE OFFICIAL STORY!), of what happened that day. YOU are simply showing that you are taking his claims out of context.

[Arus808]

DUDE, in my post #20 in this thread, I POSTED a link to a picture of a "30-ton hydraulic press!" It looks quite a bit more robust than the wimpy hydraulic presses you posted pictures of. Here it is again since you were too lazy to bother fully reading my post:

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachinery.com/img_used_equipment/used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine%20(2).jpg (http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachinery.com/img_used_equipment/used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine%20%282%29.jpg )


for the love of all that is $deity. YOU are using the hydraulic press of ONE image. I posted SEVERAL of 50 ton presses! that's what they look like! THOSE ARE 50 tons presseS! eghad. Im not that stupid to post an image and calim that its 50 ton press when its not!


YOu are being intellectually dishonest here to only use ONE picture, when you can google and find many pcitures of 50 ton presses, that look like the presses I posted!


First image on this page:
http://www.glenridgemachine.com/machine_miscellaneous.htm
Says so right above the image

This is a 50 ton press:
http://www.filtreccorp.com/catalog/shop-press-hydraulicelectric-pump-p-230.html


so please provide a source where Mike describes what the press actually looked like. To a T.

[DavidJames]

...so I'm taking EXTRA care to make sure I know what i'm talking about.That explains why you abandon the other thread. You remember, where you first posted trying be all engineering like, then met up with people who actually do know what their talking about. Remember, then when called on it, you changed the subject, remember. Then you said you were too busy at work (but that didn't stop you from continuing posting after changing the subject), then, wham, disappeared.

Now you're over here.

But don't feel bad, you guys are all like that. Focus seems to be an issue.

Take care.

[Gravy]

Low explosives cannot. The reason for this (off the top of my head) is that the high explosive reaction is characterized by detonation velocities in the millions of feet per second.Thousands, brasil. Thousands. And yet no one who was directly exposed to the fireballs reported any such thing happening. You do understand that a high explosive produces a blast wave that travels much farther than any fire it produces, don't you? If you do not understand that, please do not stand close enough to a stick of dynamite to get burned by it, okay?

A fireball rushing down an elevator shaft from 100 floors upWho claims this happened? Not the "official version." Not me.

...is not capable of reducing a hydraulic press to rubble.Is a jet fuel blast capable of knocking one over and burying it when a nonbearing wall is blown out? Of course. Here's an informative post by Ryan Mackey that will help you to understand this issue: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3193586&postcount=55

Perhaps you aren't aware that Mike Pecoraro isn't arguing that a bomb destroyed the press. Perhaps you missed his description of the white smoke and kerosene smell on the B-6 level.

Did you miss that, brasil, or are you conveniently forgetting it? I'd appreciate an answer.

I suggest you read my paper "William Rodriguez, Escape Artist (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home)." It presents dozens of witness accounts, all of which are consistent with jet fuel igniting, and none of which are consistent with the use of high explosives.

[R.Mackey]

I don't even know where to begin with you because you really have NO IDEA what you're talking about. [...] The reason for this (off the top of my head) is that the high explosive reaction is characterized by detonation velocities in the millions of feet per second.


Oh, the irony.

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

[brasil]

OH SORRY, i was off by a couple of zeroes because I'm trying to single handedly fend off an attack of bullies in a hostile forum where I can only type and research simultaneously at the same time. Excuuuuuse Me. Totovader and Arus808 are off by a lot more than some zeroes. They're not even worth replying to because they're obviously still in high school...

You're right, the detonation velocity is in the realm of thousands of feet per second with high explosives. I confused the number with pounds per square inch of pressure that high explosives can create, which IS around 1 million or more. The exact detonation velocity is not relevant. What IS relevant, and what I am 100% correct in saying is that high explosives can cut through steel and destroy a hydraulic press, but burning jet fuel cannot, especially not from almost 100 floors away through floors walls, and multiple elevator shafts.

As to the "fireball" raging down the elevator shafts - I was under the impression that the "official explanation" for the damage to the WTC lobby (the one where huge sections of marble broke off the walls and all the windows were blown out) was a raging mass of burning jet fuel blasting the elevators down to the lobby, and fire. The other theory is that explosives on the lower floors or in the basement caused that damage. Which theory do you believe?

Yes, I did read portions of "William Rodriguez, Escape Artist" because I still believe that the testimonies of the employees in the lobby and basements point more to explosives going off than anything that could have been caused by a plane 80 or 90 floors up, but I wanted your take on it. I don't doubt that you have only included accounts "consistent with jet fuel igniting" and none that are consistent with explosives, however, I think it's hard to so easily sweep under the rug Mike Pecoraro's account of extensive damage and "rubble" and a hydraulic press "gone."

Also, I believe the seismic data also points more strongly to explosives than does a jet impact at the top of the building (your point about how far the shock wave travels). Witnesses described the building swaying drastically and "torquing" after the plane hit. My first guess is that too much of the energy from the plane impact was absorbed by the massive, swaying building to create the magnitude of seismic activity that Columbia recorded in the ground. That's another issue I want to take up with you. I don't have sources on hand or numbers, but it makes a lot of sense. I will look for information about those topics, but I will not appreciate an attack dog jumping all over me because I don't have it NOW.

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

[LashL]

OH SORRY, i was off by a couple of zeroes... <no need to go any further>

88.
(You do know what that means, don't you, brasil?)


What a complete and utter waste of time you are.


LashL, please refrain from personalizing things - address the argument, not the individual.

Thanks. :)

[Gravy]

brasil, you seem to miss reading a lot of posts here. I'd appreciate your response to the points in my post #43. Thanks.

[R.Mackey]

Also, I believe the seismic data also points more strongly to explosives than does a jet impact at the top of the building (your point about how far the shock wave travels). Witnesses described the building swaying drastically and "torquing" after the plane hit. My first guess is that too much of the energy from the plane impact was absorbed by the massive, swaying building to create the magnitude of seismic activity that Columbia recorded in the ground. That's another issue I want to take up with you. I don't have sources on hand or numbers, but it makes a lot of sense. I will look for information about those topics, but I will not appreciate an attack dog jumping all over me because I don't have it NOW.

Actually, that makes no sense at all. If the building was "torquing" after being hit, rather than translating, that implies the base of the building was resisting the force of impact. Rotational moment is created by force couples. This guarantees that force was transmitted into the ground after impact, and thus would have showed up on seismographs.

Furthermore, the seismographic readings have a characteristic time associated with building motion, not just a sudden impulse as would be seen with explosives.

And had there been explosives, you'd need to explain how on earth someone managed to trigger them exactly at the same time as an aircraft impact. Fat chance. Even if we ignore the fact that such explosives wouldn't make any sense at all, this hypothesis is loony.

You should probably take a break and reassess your position. So far you've not managed anything terribly insightful.

[Gravy]

These things take time, and you people would be surprised how popular of a guy I am in NYC.If you catch me saying that you've never gotten anything right, remind me of this statement.

Posting to this forum may just be a fun diversion for today, but if I don't get more respect I may be forced to go back to my A-list partying. Here it is 12:40 am on a wednesday night, and I'm actually getting irritated because of posts on a forum where no one agrees with me when I could be out dancing with my hot girl friends.I know basic membership in Second Life is free. Is upgrading to the A-list worth the money?

[Gravy]

I got yer seismic data right here.

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

– Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York.

[brasil]

Is a jet fuel blast capable of knocking one over and burying it when a nonbearing wall is blown out? Of course. Here's an informative post by Ryan Mackey that will help you to understand this issue: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3193586&postcount=55

Perhaps you aren't aware that Mike Pecoraro isn't arguing that a bomb destroyed the press. Perhaps you missed his description of the white smoke and kerosene smell on the B-6 level.

Did you miss that, brasil, or are you conveniently forgetting it? I'd appreciate an answer.

No, I am not ignoring his description of smoke or "kerosene smell." I'm also not disputing the possibility that jet fuel somehow made it all the way from the impact zone to the basement. What I was doing was highlighting the things he described which YOU are conveniently omitting or forgetting when you discuss the issue. I'm happy to consider the possibility of jet fuel in the basements, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence for explosions. It seems you've also spent a lot of time attacking Rodriguez's character. I need to look into his story more, admittedly.

I skimmed R.Mackey's post about the energy potential stored in jet fuel. My first reaction to it is if jet fuel is so amazingly packed with explosive power, why is it never used as a high explosive on its own for demolition work? (i have never heard of it being used for anything of that nature, correct me if i'm wrong).

He rather boldly states: "What matters is that 290 kg of jet fuel is a totally acceptable amount of jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts. The damage seen in the basement is, therefore, perfectly reasonable."

I agree that 290 Kg of jet fuel could have poured down the elevator shafts, however, it requires a very large jump in logic to link that to the amount of damage reported in the basement. This brings me back to my minor error with numbers regarding detonation velocity vs. pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. Jet fuel in an unconfined state is not to my knowledge going to have much blast potential at all, in terms of fps or psi. I could imagine a fireball bursting out of a confined elevator shaft, but this will not even come close to creating the blast required to turn solid objects to "rubble." Even in a totally confined state, I'm don't think jet fuel will explode in a way that's anything comparable to TNT. If this were the case, blasting would always be done with the much more "energy rich" jet fuel than the "inferior" TNT. We know it's not, so I don't understand how R.Mackey can prove his point with equations that have no bearing on what actually is used in the real world. Jet fuel is not used for blasting. TNT and other high explosives are, regardless of how much more "energy rich" jet fuel is.

[Pardalis]

My first reaction to it is if jet fuel is so amazingly packed with explosive power, why is it never used as a high explosive on its own for demolition work?

Yeah, they really should add ramming airplanes at full speed to their methods of demolition.

[LashL]

<nonsense>

As I said before: 88.

[brasil]

Actually, that makes no sense at all. If the building was "torquing" after being hit, rather than translating, that implies the base of the building was resisting the force of impact. Rotational moment is created by force couples. This guarantees that force was transmitted into the ground after impact, and thus would have showed up on seismographs.

Furthermore, the seismographic readings have a characteristic time associated with building motion, not just a sudden impulse as would be seen with explosives.

And had there been explosives, you'd need to explain how on earth someone managed to trigger them exactly at the same time as an aircraft impact. Fat chance. Even if we ignore the fact that such explosives wouldn't make any sense at all, this hypothesis is loony.

You should probably take a break and reassess your position. So far you've not managed anything terribly insightful.

If the building was "torquing" or "swaying" back and forth, then wouldn't we expect the seismic data to also show an oscillation for the duration of time that the building was moving, if what you say is correct - that the swaying building could also transmit enough of a shock wave into the ground to register seismically?

As far as I understand, you can't have it both ways: either the bulk of the energy was absorbed by the building or it was absorbed by the ground. If the building moved so much that it knocked people out of their chairs, then it seems to me the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the building and not the ground.

Yes this is conjecture, but it's informed conjecture, and since you're so sure of yourself, why don't you provide some evidence of your own or a link to something that accounts for the impact energy and where it was transmitted to?

[brasil]

I got yer seismic data right here.

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

– Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York.

That's just one guy's opinion who doesn't want to be labeled a "crackpot" by his colleagues at Columbia. It's a statement of opinion, not a scientific one And guess what, I work for Columbia and I know how unpopular anyone is who asks too many questions about 9-11.

[R.Mackey]

I agree that 290 Kg of jet fuel could have poured down the elevator shafts, however, it requires a very large jump in logic to link that to the amount of damage reported in the basement. This brings me back to my minor error with numbers regarding detonation velocity vs. pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. Jet fuel in an unconfined state is not to my knowledge going to have much blast potential at all, in terms of fps or psi. I could imagine a fireball bursting out of a confined elevator shaft, but this will not even come close to creating the blast required to turn solid objects to "rubble." Even in a totally confined state, I'm don't think jet fuel will explode in a way that's anything comparable to TNT. If this were the case, blasting would always be done with the much more "energy rich" jet fuel than the "inferior" TNT. We know it's not, so I don't understand how R.Mackey can prove his point with equations that have no bearing on what actually is used in the real world. Jet fuel is not used for blasting. TNT and other high explosives are, regardless of how much more "energy rich" jet fuel is.

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.

My equations speculate a total static overpressure of 5 PSI for the entire basement. This is a substantial overestimate of the event in the basement. A 5 PSI overpressure -- a momentary one, not a static one -- is generally enough to damage or destroy ordinary structures. My calculations are a wild overestimate.

Please read thoroughly in the future before attempting to criticize results you don't understand.

[Gravy]

No, I am not ignoring his description of smoke or "kerosene smell." I'm also not disputing the possibility that jet fuel somehow made it all the way from the impact zone to the basement. What I was doing was highlighting the things he described which YOU are conveniently omitting or forgetting when you discuss the issue. I'm happy to consider the possibility of jet fuel in the basements, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence for explosions.

Yo, Sherlock: I wrote a whole paper about that: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home).

[R.Mackey]

If the building was "torquing" or "swaying" back and forth, then wouldn't we expect the seismic data to also show an oscillation for the duration of time that the building was moving, if what you say is correct - that the swaying building could also transmit enough of a shock wave into the ground to register seismically?

Who said anything about a "shock wave?" The seismograph does show oscillation.


As far as I understand, you can't have it both ways: either the bulk of the energy was absorbed by the building or it was absorbed by the ground. If the building moved so much that it knocked people out of their chairs, then it seems to me the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the building and not the ground.

I can, and I do, have it both ways. Seismographs measure force and displacement, not energy dissipation. And where force is concerned, Newton specifies "equal and opposite," does he not?


Yes this is conjecture, but it's informed conjecture, and since you're so sure of yourself, why don't you provide some evidence of your own or a link to something that accounts for the impact energy and where it was transmitted to?

You've misplaced your burden of proof. It's right there beside you.

Impact energy translates into building kinetic energy translates into ground motion and is picked up by the seismograph. Energy is conserved, you know. It can show up in all of these places at slightly different times. There is no energy deficit, and you are the only person I've ever heard of who attempted such an argument. If you honestly believe this, then develop this argument -- I'm under no obligation to do it for you.

[brasil]

Yo, Sherlock: I wrote a whole paper about that: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home).

Yes, in post #45, paragraph 4, I said I had read parts of it earlier today. You're not reading everything i'm writing either, apparently.

[Gravy]

That's just one guy's opinion who doesn't want to be labeled a "crackpot" by his colleagues at Columbia. It's a statement of opinion, not a scientific one And guess what, I work for Columbia and I know how unpopular anyone is who asks too many questions about 9-11.One guy's opinion? You mean others in the LDEO may disagree with him? How about Won Young-Kim? How about seismologists at other centers? Or should we take your completely uninformed opinion over the evidence analyzed by career experts?

:hb:

Serious question: are you kidding about all this? Is this a big put-on? Because this is some of the most ridiculous 9/11 denialist nonsense that I've seen. And I've seen a lot of that.

[Arus808]

Totovader and Arus808 are off by a lot more than some zeroes. They're not even worth replying to because they're obviously still in high school...

your ad hom is seriously tiring. retract this insult or be reported.

[LashL]

Yes this is conjecture,

Yes, of course it is. The "Truth" movement has never proffered anything other than conjecture and utter nonsense, to date.

Actual facts and evidence would be nice for a change, but none have been forthcoming for the past 6 years from the conspiracy crowd.

but it's informed conjecture,


No. There is no such thing as "informed conjecture". Please, stop with the inanity already. Either present evidence in support of your conspiracy theories or admit that you have none.

It really is that simple.

[Gravy]

Yes, in post #45, paragraph 4, I said I had read parts of it earlier today. You're not reading everything i'm writing either, apparently.brasil, you claimed that I ignored claims of explosions in the basement. That means you didn't even read the first page of my Rodriguez site.

Pathetic. Please go away and come back when you're prepared to act like a halfway rational human being.

[brasil]

One guy's opinion? You mean others in the LDEO may disagree with him? How about Won Young-Kim? How about seismologists at other centers? Or should we take your completely uninformed opinion over the evidence analyzed by career experts?

:hb:

Serious question: are you kidding about all this? Is this a big put-on? Because this is some of the most ridiculous 9/11 denialist nonsense that I've seen. And I've seen a lot of that.

It is serious. Are you going to deny the power of professional level "peer pressure" to get people to tow the official line and not say anything controversial? I was one of the first people to have the balls to question the "war on terror" at Columbia University in public forums, in one case to an army colonel who came to speak (he was a blatant salesman for the war on terror). Someone with the power to fire me was at that forum and the pressure to not say anything that would be seen as too "questioning of authority" was intense.

Don't you remember what happened to one Nicholas DeGenova when he stood up in front of the Columbia community and made a blistering indictment against the colonialist history of the United States? He received death threats, a professional smackdown, and had to go into hiding.

[Arus808]

It is serious. Are you going to deny the power of professional level "peer pressure" to get people to tow the official line and not say anything controversial?


Oh please. what kind of "pressure" would a lowly professor from columbia be under? YOU do know those graphs have been out in the public for the last 6 years; if anyone wanted to go against his claims, they would have made that known.

And realize that not only american seismologists have seen those graphs. Scientists from ALL OVER THE WORLD have seen those graphs (even from those that HATE america), yet not a peep out of anyone? not even a seismologist who would "lie" to say that the professor is wrong

Please before you state any more stupid things, READ the nist report

[Redtail]

The 50 ton press again.... Smegin 'ell!

[Gravy]

brasil, reading your posts is like sitting in front of an open hydrant of ignorance, irrelevancy, denial, and arguments from incredulity. Unless you can shape up and start discussing these topics in a rational manner, I suspect you'll find that many of the smart, informed rational people here won't bother engaging with you at all. And that would be a shame, because this is a great place to learn about critical thinking.

[NYCEMT86]

<Snip>

I skimmed R.Mackey's post about the energy potential stored in jet fuel. My first reaction to it is if jet fuel is so amazingly packed with explosive power, why is it never used as a high explosive on its own for demolition work? (i have never heard of it being used for anything of that nature, correct me if i'm wrong).

He rather boldly states: "What matters is that 290 kg of jet fuel is a totally acceptable amount of jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts. The damage seen in the basement is, therefore, perfectly reasonable."

I agree that 290 Kg of jet fuel could have poured down the elevator shafts, however, it requires a very large jump in logic to link that to the amount of damage reported in the basement. This brings me back to my minor error with numbers regarding detonation velocity vs. pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. Jet fuel in an unconfined state is not to my knowledge going to have much blast potential at all, in terms of fps or psi. I could imagine a fireball bursting out of a confined elevator shaft, but this will not even come close to creating the blast required to turn solid objects to "rubble." Even in a totally confined state, I'm don't think jet fuel will explode in a way that's anything comparable to TNT. If this were the case, blasting would always be done with the much more "energy rich" jet fuel than the "inferior" TNT. We know it's not, so I don't understand how R.Mackey can prove his point with equations that have no bearing on what actually is used in the real world. Jet fuel is not used for blasting. TNT and other high explosives are, regardless of how much more "energy rich" jet fuel is.

(Bolding Mine)

There is a strong possibility that the damage in the lobby could very well indeed have been caused by exploding jet fuel.


You should see what happens when an liquid accelerant as simple as gasoline explodes.

0dSpoUUFBBM

[brasil]

brasil, reading your posts is like sitting in front of an open hydrant of ignorance, irrelevancy, denial, and arguments from incredulity. Unless you can shape up and start discussing these topics in a rational manner, I suspect you'll find that many of the smart, informed rational people here won't bother engaging with you at all. And that would be a shame, because this is a great place to learn about critical thinking.

Now I see that what they say about you was true. You're all diversion and sneaky maneuvers, and are not really actually replying to the content of what I'm posting. I think my posts have been very rational and open to further understanding, considering that I am not professing to be a working engineer, architect, demolitions expert, or any such thing (I'm a computer security/database/server expert by day and a published fashion photographer - I would like to hear what the specific credentials are of the people who are attacking me, like R. Mackey: are you a trained demolitions expert through the military, or are you just a guy who likes to play with equations on paper? I bet it's the latter).

I have considerably more knowledge across these disparate subjects (off the top my head) than almost anyone I know. I don't need to be told by you that I need to "learn critical thinking." My accomplishments in life stand on their own, and I don't need to prove them to anyone on this forum.

I haven't seen any poster on here truly come to my defense or help me back up my arguments, and the reason for that is that this forum is so hostile and such an echo chamber for people who have already made up their mind and already agree with each other that anyone who could help me never sticks around. It's more like a shark tank where the sport is to insult and intimidate the "new blood."

I'll probably post here again at some point in the future, but this has been a monumental waste of a day. Edited for civility This deck is as stacked as it gets.

[Gravy]

I have considerably more knowledge across these disparate subjects (off the top my head) than almost anyone I know.Well there's yer problem! [/Adam Savage]


This deck is as stacked as it gets.Yes, this deck is as stacked as it gets against ignorance and fallacious thinking. I'm sorry that you didn't come here to learn.

[R.Mackey]

I would like to hear what the specific credentials are of the people who are attacking me, like R. Mackey: are you a trained demolitions expert through the military, or are you just a guy who likes to play with equations on paper? I bet it's the latter).

I've said here numerous times that I do not use arguments from authority. I am quite well qualified to talk about fluid and combustion effects, thank you, but that really doesn't matter at all. Find a problem with my arguments, not with me. If you can't, then you should try to learn something.


I haven't seen any poster on here truly come to my defense or help me back up my arguments, and the reason for that is that this forum is so hostile and such an echo chamber for people who have already made up their mind and already agree with each other that anyone who could help me never sticks around. It's more like a shark tank where the sport is to insult and intimidate the "new blood."

That's one theory. Another theory is that you're totally wrong. And if you can't find errors in my replies, then you should conclude the latter.

[Arus808]

Now I see that what they say about you was true. You're all diversion and sneaky maneuvers, and are not really actually replying to the content of what I'm posting.
He is doing nothing of the sort. YOU are the one dodging, posting logical fallacies, claims from personal incredulity and posting quote mined claims as if they were true.

YOU are however have been shown to be lacking in evidence, despite us asking SEVERAL times of you to present it. NONe has been provided by you thus far. All you have is given your speculation on how "fuel" should react, of cousre, without any source of claims to back up your opinions. YOU are simply 100% wrong about what you think fuel will do, and have not even attempted to understand how volatile fuel can be when introduced to a source of heat.

All that you have posted thus far are claims from various truthers who have done drive by postings. YOUR issues have been dealth with NUMEROUS times here, in varying posts over the last year and a half. However, if you had BOTHERED to use the SEARCH feature on this forum you will see that GRAVY has also answered these issues, and finding that he had been repeating himself to closed minded inviduals like yourself, he wrote SEVERLA papers that are found in the Gravy thread in the sticky porition of this FORUm. IF you had bothered to spend the last day READING those papers he took the time to write, insted of posting your ignorance in this thread, you would have had all your issues answers, but then again, YOU;d ignore those answers anyway.

YOU are not interested in the truth. YOU are only interested in seeing yourself talk, and thinking that youre the first person to bring up your issues.

YOU are not, and dont think that you are.

Gravy has no obligation to engage in topics with people who refuse to learn; and you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no idea what the real explanation to 911 is, and that is telling in your posts.

I think my posts have been very rational and open to further understanding, considering that I am not professing to be a working engineer, architect, demolitions expert, or any such thing (I'm a computer security/database/server expert by day and a published fashion photographer -then maybe instead of posting, you should be READING the various threads that cover the exact topics you are engaging in. That is poor form to a new forum user; agin YOUR topics have been addressed numerous times. Why dont you take this time and search for your answers.

I would like to hear what the specific credentials are of the people who are attacking me, like R. Mackey: are you a trained demolitions expert through the military, or are you just a guy who likes to play with equations on paper? I bet it's the latter).
If you bothered to search, R Mackey has stated who he is and his expertise. But then again you're not interested in learning anything

I have considerably more knowledge across these disparate subjects (off the top my head) than almost anyone I know. No, you have a considerable amount of assumption about WHAT you know about what amounts to be nothing.



I don't need to be told by you that I need to "learn critical thinking." My accomplishments in life stand on their own, and I don't need to prove them to anyone on this forum. if you want to be taken seriously, anywhere, you need to learn that making absurd claims requires proof. making judgements based on your opinion, and passing them off as fact is intellectually dishonest. I hope that you tell everyne you meet when you're spreading yoru 911 fanaticism that you aren't a engineer or architect and that EVERYTHING yous tate on the subject should be taken with a grain of salt.


You can all wank yourselves thinking I'm leaving because I can't hold my own in the debate, but that's simply not true. This deck is as stacked as it gets.


and this is the kind of idiocy that you could do without. Why dont you just leave us and come back when you are ready to act like an adult?

[Zlaya]

He is doing nothing of the sort. YOU are the one dodging, posting logical fallacies, claims from personal incredulity and posting quote mined claims as if they were true.

YOU are however have been shown to be lacking in evidence, despite us asking SEVERAL times of you to present it. NONe has been provided by you thus far. All you have is given your speculation on how "fuel" should react, of cousre, without any source of claims to back up your opinions. YOU are simply 100% wrong about what you think fuel will do, and have not even attempted to understand how volatile fuel can be when introduced to a source of heat.

All that you have posted thus far are claims from various truthers who have done drive by postings. YOUR issues have been dealth with NUMEROUS times here, in varying posts over the last year and a half. However, if you had BOTHERED to use the SEARCH feature on this forum you will see that GRAVY has also answered these issues, and finding that he had been repeating himself to closed minded inviduals like yourself, he wrote SEVERLA papers that are found in the Gravy thread in the sticky porition of this FORUm. IF you had bothered to spend the last day READING those papers he took the time to write, insted of posting your ignorance in this thread, you would have had all your issues answers, but then again, YOU;d ignore those answers anyway.

YOU are not interested in the truth. YOU are only interested in seeing yourself talk, and thinking that youre the first person to bring up your issues.

YOU are not, and dont think that you are.

Gravy has no obligation to engage in topics with people who refuse to learn; and you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have no idea what the real explanation to 911 is, and that is telling in your posts.

then maybe instead of posting, you should be READING the various threads that cover the exact topics you are engaging in. That is poor form to a new forum user; agin YOUR topics have been addressed numerous times. Why dont you take this time and search for your answers.

If you bothered to search, R Mackey has stated who he is and his expertise. But then again you're not interested in learning anything

No, you have a considerable amount of assumption about WHAT you know about what amounts to be nothing.



if you want to be taken seriously, anywhere, you need to learn that making absurd claims requires proof. making judgements based on your opinion, and passing them off as fact is intellectually dishonest. I hope that you tell everyne you meet when you're spreading yoru 911 fanaticism that you aren't a engineer or architect and that EVERYTHING yous tate on the subject should be taken with a grain of salt.





and this is the kind of idiocy that you could do without. Why dont you just leave us and come back when you are ready to act like an adult?

Its funny how you see all that based on few postings...

Great job debunker-ooo

[Dave Rogers]

Mike Pecoraro says that the machine shop was reduced to rubble and the hydraulic press was "gone." He didn't say "moved around." He said "gone" which I take to mean "completely destroyed." Since he worked there, I have to assume he was plenty familiar with the exact layout of the room and whether the press had merely moved.

If it was one of the objects pictured elsewhere in the thread, all it would take is for it to have been knocked over and covered with rubble, and it wouldn't be visible. The question is, is that a more simple explanation than the presence of high explosives sufficiently powerful to destroy this press entirely?


"You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming."

If they couldn't see through the smoke, how far would the press have to have been moved for them simply not to be able to see it, no matter how well they knew the layout of the machine shop?

Dave

[chillzero]

Please remember to be civil in these discussions, and do not personalise the comments.

[SDC]

I know we shouldn't personalize this, but still, if he never returns (as he threatened he would not), this has to count as a truly remarkable performance. A wannabee engineer, able to absorb vast amounts of knowledge with a simple google search, a published fashion photographer, a hit with female persons, in demand for dancing, a computer jockey at a great university, bold enough to stand up to a "blatant" military apologist (a colonel, no less!) for the war on terror...

Actually, this has been such a performance that I hope he doesn't return, because it would spoil the effect. Gild the lily. All that stuff. Yesterday/ last night should live in memory as the Day Brasil Came to Call. What's that quote about St Crispin's Day?

[Totovader]

OH SORRY, i was off by a couple of zeroes because I'm trying to single handedly fend off an attack of bullies in a hostile forum where I can only type and research simultaneously at the same time. Excuuuuuse Me. Totovader and Arus808 are off by a lot more than some zeroes. They're not even worth replying to because they're obviously still in high school...

Wow. You're really satisfied with this as an excuse?

If you're wrong, it's your own problem. If you think that being off by "a couple zeros" is nothing, then perhaps you should actually address the consistency of your claim- as I pointed out in my previous post.

But if all you can do is throw temper tantrums like this- I'm betting you won't bother to address the facts.

[RedIbis]

I'm betting you won't bother to address the facts.


Uh, you might want to stay away from that strategy.

[Totovader]

Uh, you might want to stay away from that strategy.

Uh, you might want to address the replies that you abandoned as well.

Not sure why you think the facts are on your side- clearly you have a consistency problem as well.

[DavidJames]

I know we shouldn't personalize this, but still, if he never returns (as he threatened he would not), this has to count as a truly remarkable performance. A wannabee engineer, able to absorb vast amounts of knowledge with a simple google search, a published fashion photographer, a hit with female persons, in demand for dancing, a computer jockey at a great university, bold enough to stand up to a "blatant" military apologist (a colonel, no less!) for the war on terror...

Actually, this has been such a performance that I hope he doesn't return, because it would spoil the effect. Gild the lily. All that stuff. Yesterday/ last night should live in memory as the Day Brasil Came to Call. What's that quote about St Crispin's Day?When referring to CTists, I often use the phrase "a combination of arrogance and ignorance."

In the past 2 years of listening to them, brasil is the hands down champion owner of this perfect storm of attributes.

[beachnut]

I have considerably more knowledge across these disparate subjects (off the top my head) than almost anyone I know. I don't need to be told by you that I need to "learn critical thinking." My accomplishments in life stand on their own, and I don't need to prove them to anyone on this forum.

I haven't seen any poster on here truly come to my defense or help me back up my arguments, and the reason for that is that this forum is so hostile and such an echo chamber for people who have already made up their mind and already agree with each other that anyone who could help me never sticks around. It's more like a shark tank where the sport is to insult and intimidate the "new blood."

I'll probably post here again at some point in the future, but this has been a monumental waste of a day. Edited for civility This deck is as stacked as it gets.
Too smart for all, but still thinks 9/11 truth might have something? That makes all your smarts on 9/11 go right down to stupid. There are no facts to support any ideas from 9/11 truth. You are full of junk. You post stuff that does not support the point you are trying to make. Try again is 6 years after you get out of high school and get close to getting a PhD in something, you are unable to research 9/11 very well. Maybe nearing a PhD some rational thought will seep into your research and presentation.

I did not waste much time, you actually implied you were smarter than most. Why do you have great problems getting 9/11 right?

Ironic, like the title 9/11 truth. (first cut, would take me hours to get this just right but I know it is not worth it, you need to do the work to get better at this)

Nobody has made up their mind, you forgot to bring FACTS!

[DGM]

Now the press that "disappeared". I own 3 presses and a funny (sometimes dangerous) thing about them is they're top heavy. The press he talks about more than likely tipped over and was under other stuff. He did say it was hard to see.

[Dog Town]

I want this question answered, and mathematical equations are irrelevant. .

Pesky math! STUNDIE?

[R.Mackey]

R.Mackey's explanation makes no sense for liquid or already burning jet fuel, which will not "explode." Perhaps if jet fuel vapor had permeated an entire floor and then ignited it would "explode" but this is simply an impossibility just seconds after the impact. It would take time for the vapor to fill a room, and by then people would notice and flee.

I want this question answered, and mathematical equations are irrelevant. I want to know in plain english how jet fuel can travel 1000 ft into a basement and instantly "explode." Don't tell me a fireball caused walls to get knocked over and "rubble."


On what basis do you claim that the jet fuel vapor would "take time" to fill a room, time enough for people in the room to detect it and evacuate?

The jet fuel impacted the structure at either 450+ or 550+ MPH, depending on which structure we're talking about, and poured straight down several hundred feet of elevator shaft. The jet fuel/air mix thus created would have been heated but not all burned due to the fireball at impact, which briefly created an oxygen-poor environment on the upper floors. Falling elevators in those same shafts could even have created negative pressure in those shafts, sucking the fuel/air mix along with them.

Conditions are perfect for a backdraft situation, in the basement, a few seconds to a few tens of seconds after impact. I have no idea how anyone could conclude otherwise.

[brasil]

Now the press that "disappeared". I own 3 presses and a funny (sometimes dangerous) thing about them is they're top heavy. The press he talks about more than likely tipped over and was under other stuff. He did say it was hard to see.

Ok, it's possible that it tipped over if it was that kind of press. The photo of the press I posted could have been what it looked like, and that one definitely looks like it's not the kind that tips over. Pecoraro seemed genuinely shocked that his press was nowhere to be seen, but it sounds like you wouldn't be if it was the kind you have. The one I linked to is here (looks pretty old):

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachinery.com/img_used_equipment/used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine%20%282%29.jpg

Another question I have (and I think I should be allowed to ask the question rather than try to google for it for the next hour, because people on here are supposedly so knowledgeable) is:

How big and heavy were the elevators which dropped and hit the bottom, or near the bottom? Could elevators dropping into the basement create enough of an "explosion" to blow out windows and knock marble off the walls in the lobby?

Let's say the missing hydraulic press is not slam-dunk evidence for explosives. What about Philip Morelli describing the basement as having people with "broken legs and screaming," "walls down," (this is WTC 1, first impact)... Then he says he ran over to WTC 2 and "it happened all over again" and that "walls were caving in," and finally: "i know people that got killed in the basement, i know people that got broken legs in the basement, i know people who got reconstructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face...."

Morelli on NY1 (video): http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html

If walls are "hitting people in the face" then something is exploding. I have to assume these walls in the basement were made of concrete (I would like to know). Fireballs of already-burning jet fuel don't suddenly decide to explode when they feel like it.

So if something "exploded" in both basements, as Morelli describes, then what was it? Remember, he describes essentially the identical scene in BOTH basements. It's pretty amazing that with all of the variables with elevator position, location of impact of the planes, random vectors of jet fuel dripping down 1000 ft, that the scenes in both basements would be so similar. The second plane didn't even directly hit the core where the elevators were, so you would expect quite a lot of difference in the effects seen in the two basements. Morelli seems to be saying it was "the same thing all over again."

I want a concise, polite explanation for this if someone has one to offer. Let's see if people can stay "focused" as I was accused of not being, and directly answer my questions in their own words, same as I'm asking them. I have never said I was coming here with "facts" or extensive knowledge, but what I have are questions, and if people here are so confident then they should be able to answer them, or point me in the right direction.

[brasil]

Pesky math! STUNDIE?

Math is an abstraction used to back up observation in the real world. No amount of math can justify a violation of the laws of physics. If you don't have a proper reply to my, or others' questions, don't post.

[SDC]

Math is an abstraction used to back up observation in the real world. No amount of math can justify a violation of the laws of physics. If you don't have a proper reply to my, or others' questions, don't post.

Oooh, scary. I love it when they say "don't post."

So, I want to know. Is it true that math and physics don't mix?

I checked, by the way. No one said you weren't at Columbia and a fashion photographer. Don't be so touchy, that's my advice.

[Dave Rogers]

I want a concise, polite explanation for this if someone has one to offer. Let's see if people can stay "focused" as I was accused of not being, and directly answer my questions in their own words, same as I'm asking them. I have never said I was coming here with "facts" or extensive knowledge, but what I have are questions, and if people here are so confident then they should be able to answer them, or point me in the right direction.

If this were a genuine representation of your attitude, then you'd probably be getting some much more respectful replies. However, what you're actually doing is asking questions, then imposing a set of conditions on acceptable answers which excludes any answer that agrees with the generally accepted view of events on 9-11. For example: You ask what exploded in the basement, but instruct those who reply not to conclude that the "explosion" was the deflagration of a mixture of jet fuel and air, state that jet fuel could not in your opinion have been present at the time and place of that deflagration, and refuse to accept that such a deflagration is easily capable of producing the sort of overpressure that would be required to explain the damage to the basement. Since you're pre-emptively rejecting the answers to your questions, why would anyone bother to give you a serious answer?

Dave

[beachnut]

If walls are "hitting people in the face" then something is exploding. I have to assume these walls in the basement were made of concrete (I would like to know). Fireballs of already-burning jet fuel don't suddenly decide to explode when they feel like it.
to be saying it was "the same thing all over again."
Explosives that knock concrete walls on to people in their faces would kill them. Sorry, you are the weakest poster on this subject I have seen here in a long time, getting hung up on a tiny thing in the basement that was not due to EXplosives. You are hung up on the damage to the WTC due to terrorist running planes into the towers. You are now trying to do what? What does your stuff mean? Please spell out your idea, what it is and what it means in the big picture? You need to have a goal, a purpose for wasting your superior mentality on this subject. Gee, why not attack the fact some terrorist flew the planes, you know only super smart pilots can fly those jets so perfectly into a building. Why not attack the BS pilot stuff? You must have superior flying skills too, right? Why start with some damage to the basement which did not even give anyone a concussion from the blast of the non explosives in the base ploy mainly supported only by the idiots of 9/11 truth?

[beachnut]

Math is an abstraction used to back up observation in the real world. No amount of math can justify a violation of the laws of physics. If you don't have a proper reply to my, or others' questions, don't post.
That makes physics an abstraction (like an approximation of the real world F=ma, is an approximation, and nothing breaks the law of physics very much, except the minds of woo, like you) used to explain the real world. Gee, you do not use facts because?

If you have no facts to support your 9/11 truth ideas, do not post. But gee, you can post anyway, it is good to see you have no real information on 9/11, yet you are the smartest person you know.

[DGM]

Ok, it's possible that it tipped over if it was that kind of press. The photo of the press I posted could have been what it looked like, and that one definitely looks like it's not the kind that tips over. Pecoraro seemed genuinely shocked that his press was nowhere to be seen, but it sounds like you wouldn't be if it was the kind you have. The one I linked to is here (looks pretty old):

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachinery.com/img_used_equipment/used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine%20%282%29.jpg

Another question I have (and I think I should be allowed to ask the question rather than try to google for it for the next hour, because people on here are supposedly so knowledgeable) is:

How big and heavy were the elevators which dropped and hit the bottom, or near the bottom? Could elevators dropping into the basement create enough of an "explosion" to blow out windows and knock marble off the walls in the lobby?

Let's say the missing hydraulic press is not slam-dunk evidence for explosives. What about Philip Morelli describing the basement as having people with "broken legs and screaming," "walls down," (this is WTC 1, first impact)... Then he says he ran over to WTC 2 and "it happened all over again" and that "walls were caving in," and finally: "i know people that got killed in the basement, i know people that got broken legs in the basement, i know people who got reconstructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face...."

Morelli on NY1 (video): http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html

If walls are "hitting people in the face" then something is exploding. I have to assume these walls in the basement were made of concrete (I would like to know). Fireballs of already-burning jet fuel don't suddenly decide to explode when they feel like it.

So if something "exploded" in both basements, as Morelli describes, then what was it? Remember, he describes essentially the identical scene in BOTH basements. It's pretty amazing that with all of the variables with elevator position, location of impact of the planes, random vectors of jet fuel dripping down 1000 ft, that the scenes in both basements would be so similar. The second plane didn't even directly hit the core where the elevators were, so you would expect quite a lot of difference in the effects seen in the two basements. Morelli seems to be saying it was "the same thing all over again."

I want a concise, polite explanation for this if someone has one to offer. Let's see if people can stay "focused" as I was accused of not being, and directly answer my questions in their own words, same as I'm asking them. I have never said I was coming here with "facts" or extensive knowledge, but what I have are questions, and if people here are so confident then they should be able to answer them, or point me in the right direction.
The press that you posted is a very specialized type. The machine shop that they were referring to was a general purpose for maintenance and such.

As far as the elevators goes I was reminded of a "myth busters" show when they dropped an elevator from like 5 floors. It was like "a bomb went off" I think they said. I don't know if they have those episodes on-line but it's worth a watch.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by brasil
It's just amazing that MY post was edited for civility when the fact of the matter is that the overall tone of the responses to my overall very polite writing has been to ignore any instance where i addressed something of substance,............

i could have continued that exercise for a good ten more minutes. i shoudl have posted the above last. posted again. answer my question. thank you.

What kind of attitude is this brasil? First you write a post, 14 minutes later you repost the same post and demand that we answer it. Do you think we are some kind of 9/11 help desk under contract to respond to any 9/11 related question within 5 minutes?

Regarding your questions I suggest you read this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099

And regarding the walls in the basement :
In the sub levels of WTC many of the walls were made of masonry blocks like the one on this page:

http://www.espionageinfo.com/Vo-Z/Wo...st-Attack.html
(Picture from the 1993 bombing)

That includes the walls separating the footprint of WTC 1 from the rest of the basement levels and parts of the corridors inside B-4. But the elevator shafts looks as though they were made of drywall boards with facing tiles on the outside if you study the architectural drawings for that level carefully.

They were not load bearing and not reinforced.

But according to Vincent Dunn's table (http://www.firenuggets.com/dunn5.htm) you only need 2-3 PSI to knock down cinderblock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_masonry_unit) wall like the one in the picture above. Well within the R.Mackey's worst case scenario.
EFFECTS OF EXPLOSION DESTRUCTIVE PEAK PRESSURE
GLASS SHATTERING : 0-5 PSI
FIREFIGHTER KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE: 1-2 PSI
CINDERBLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE: 7-8 PSI
FIREFIGHTER LUNG DAMAGE: 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
50% FATALITIES: 50 PSI
99 FATALITIES: 99 PSI

[DGM]

Damn Norseman I was just looking for that thread.

I'm to slow.

It's a good read Brasil lots of info.

[brasil]

I'm only replying to two people right now, because they're the only two who are staying on topic and are polite: DGM and R.Mackey. The rest of you are adding absolutely nothing of substance, and you're completely off-topic. Let me remind you what the topic is: "Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims." The two witnesses I'm talking about are Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli. If your reply is not pertinent to the testimony of those two WTC employees, or another witness in that category then refrain from hitting the post button.

DGM:

"The press that you posted is a very specialized type. The machine shop that they were referring to was a general purpose for maintenance and such."

Short of calling up Mike Pecoraro, is there any way to know for sure what kind of press was in that machine shop? For now, I don't think anyone here can say for sure. What is not up for debate is that Pecoraro was genuinely surprised to see the condition of that room and the absence (in his view) of the press. That's all we can say right now. I would love to talk to the guy.

R.Mackey:

"On what basis do you claim that the jet fuel vapor would "take time" to fill a room, time enough for people in the room to detect it and evacuate?"

On the basis that the state of the jet fuel when it reached the basement was either a) already burning or b) in liquid form. If it was already burning, then vapor is out of the question. If it was in liquid form, it would take quite a bit of time to evaporate into enough vapor to fill the room and then ignite.

"The jet fuel impacted the structure at either 450+ or 550+ MPH, depending on which structure we're talking about, and poured straight down several hundred feet of elevator shaft. The jet fuel/air mix thus created would have been heated but not all burned due to the fireball at impact, which briefly created an oxygen-poor environment on the upper floors. Falling elevators in those same shafts could even have created negative pressure in those shafts, sucking the fuel/air mix along with them."

Do we really know for sure what state the jet fuel was in when it made its way down the elevator shaft? From the video of the second impact, we can see that a majority of the jet fuel exploded outside the building, and yet, Philip Morelli describes virtually identical conditions in the basement of WTC2 as he had just experienced in WTC1.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that an "elevator/fuel/air" mixture fell at great speed from the tops of the building and did not ignite until it had reached the base of the building, creating blast effects on 3 or 4 floors, from the lobby down to the sub-basements. You are also saying that this fuel/air mixture survived the sparks and heat we would expect of an elevator falling that fast, and managed to fill whole basement areas with vapor, and only then ignite? Also, how did this liquid jet fuel get a chance to evenly mix with air in the shafts? Wouldn't it have just dripped down the same way as if you poured water down the shaft? From watching youtube videos of the military's fuel/air explosives in action, it seems to be a pretty tricky process to combine the fuel and air to the point that it becomes explosive. I don't see any such conditions in the elevator shafts.

"Conditions are perfect for a backdraft situation, in the basement, a few seconds to a few tens of seconds after impact. I have no idea how anyone could conclude otherwise."

I am not concluding that backdraft is not a possibility, I'm hypothesizing that backdraft and the other conditions mentioned are not sufficient to create blast effects from the lobby to the basements, and almost identically (according to Philip Morelli) in both towers, despite very different impact scenarios.

I need to learn more about backdraft and how it applies to exploding jet fuel almost 1000 ft. above the area we are told was affected. Has backdraft ever been known to create effects at such a distance in the history of firefighting? I'm going to read up on backdraft, but I want to hear your thoughts (DGM and R.Mackey).

[brasil]

Damn Norseman I was just looking for that thread.

I'm to slow.

It's a good read Brasil lots of info.

reading it now.... looks interesting.

[Lurker]

Also, I believe the seismic data also points more strongly to explosives than does a jet impact at the top of the building (your point about how far the shock wave travels). Witnesses described the building swaying drastically and "torquing" after the plane hit. My first guess is that too much of the energy from the plane impact was absorbed by the massive, swaying building to create the magnitude of seismic activity that Columbia recorded in the ground. That's another issue I want to take up with you. I don't have sources on hand or numbers, but it makes a lot of sense. I will look for information about those topics, but I will not appreciate an attack dog jumping all over me because I don't have it NOW.
Since neither of us are seismologists, it would be prudent for you to call Columbia and attempt to query them on their readings. To try and attempt to interpret the readings yourself or by someone else who has no expertise in such would be inadvisable.

[Lurker]

As far as I understand, you can't have it both ways: either the bulk of the energy was absorbed by the building or it was absorbed by the ground. If the building moved so much that it knocked people out of their chairs, then it seems to me the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the building and not the ground.
Sophomore level enginnering has a class callled Statics. In it, you learn to draw free body diagrams of systems and equilibriate force. If I hold a stick, apply a force at one end, my free body diagram requires the ground to apply an equal and opposite direction force to balance it. Also a moment. This is whether the stick bends or not.

I apologize that I cannot quote the Statics book that this is from but it is in EVERY book on Statics.

So we would expect the ground to see force in oppostion to the plane impact.

[Lurker]

That's just one guy's opinion who doesn't want to be labeled a "crackpot" by his colleagues at Columbia. It's a statement of opinion, not a scientific one And guess what, I work for Columbia and I know how unpopular anyone is who asks too many questions about 9-11.

Do you have evidence for your opinion that this guy is holding back? Is your interpretation fo seismic evidence better than his? Why?

Interesting reply. It certainly appears that you will dismiss all expert testimony that contradicts your opinion. I mean, couldn't you apply "doesn't want to be labeled a crackpot" to just about every expert that contradicts you? Seems your views become quite invincible that way.

[ElMondoHummus]

(Bolding Mine)

No, I am not ignoring his description of smoke or "kerosene smell." I'm also not disputing the possibility that jet fuel somehow made it all the way from the impact zone to the basement. What I was doing was highlighting the things he described which YOU are conveniently omitting or forgetting when you discuss the issue. I'm happy to consider the possibility of jet fuel in the basements, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence for explosions. It seems you've also spent a lot of time attacking Rodriguez's character. I need to look into his story more, admittedly.

I skimmed R.Mackey's post about the energy potential stored in jet fuel. My first reaction to it is if jet fuel is so amazingly packed with explosive power, why is it never used as a high explosive on its own for demolition work? (i have never heard of it being used for anything of that nature, correct me if i'm wrong).

He rather boldly states: "What matters is that 290 kg of jet fuel is a totally acceptable amount of jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts. The damage seen in the basement is, therefore, perfectly reasonable."

I agree that 290 Kg of jet fuel could have poured down the elevator shafts, however, it requires a very large jump in logic to link that to the amount of damage reported in the basement. This brings me back to my minor error with numbers regarding detonation velocity vs. pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. Jet fuel in an unconfined state is not to my knowledge going to have much blast potential at all, in terms of fps or psi. I could imagine a fireball bursting out of a confined elevator shaft, but this will not even come close to creating the blast required to turn solid objects to "rubble." Even in a totally confined state, I'm don't think jet fuel will explode in a way that's anything comparable to TNT. If this were the case, blasting would always be done with the much more "energy rich" jet fuel than the "inferior" TNT. We know it's not, so I don't understand how R.Mackey can prove his point with equations that have no bearing on what actually is used in the real world. Jet fuel is not used for blasting. TNT and other high explosives are, regardless of how much more "energy rich" jet fuel is.

There is a strong possibility that the damage in the lobby could very well indeed have been caused by exploding jet fuel.


You should see what happens when an liquid accelerant as simple as gasoline explodes.

0dSpoUUFBBM


Brasil, going back to your issue with jet fuel: I think it might be worth a digression into discussing this further. You said:


Jet fuel in an unconfined state is not to my knowledge going to have much blast potential at all, in terms of fps or psi. I could imagine a fireball bursting out of a confined elevator shaft, but this will not even come close to creating the blast required to turn solid objects to "rubble."



... and NYCEMT86 - who has firefighting training, and has published an excellent primer on the Basic Principles of Fire Behavior (although it's not exactly on topic here, as doesn't address your points about jet fuel in the WTC directly; rather, it's a general primer) - has provided the beginning of a response to your comment.

NYCEMT86: Any chance you can elaborate on your response, and the comparative effects of explosives such as TNT vs. fuels like jet fuel, or other close liquids (kerosene, naptha, substances like that). Plus, if I may make a request of you :), mind going into any more detail why "(t)here is a strong possibility that the damage in the lobby could very well indeed have been caused by exploding jet fuel"? For the record, I agree with your opinion, but it would be nice to read a treatise, however basic, on why you say that.

And others with firefighting experience - Leftysargent, et. al. (sorry if I don't remember who's who here) - please feel free to chime in as well.

My point in this is that there seems to be a mispreception about the damage jet fuel can do, and Brasil is disputing its responsibility for the damage that was witnessed. A bit more detail from those with relevant experience would be enlightening.

[Lurker]

I haven't seen any poster on here truly come to my defense or help me back up my arguments, and the reason for that is that this forum is so hostile and such an echo chamber for people who have already made up their mind and already agree with each other that anyone who could help me never sticks around. It's more like a shark tank where the sport is to insult and intimidate the "new blood."

Well, when you post information that is backed up by more than your unprofessional opinion we might have something. Thus far, the only thing that has given me pause is your discussion about low level explosives vs high level explosives and whether it could demolish a 30 Ton press. I am a bit skeptical that a fireball would have the explosive capacity to pulverize a 30 Ton press.

But, there are a few points that mitigate my skepticism:

1. I know very little about explosives
2. We don't know what else may have occurred beyond just the fireball (boundary conditions)
3. We don't know what the person meant specifically when he said "gone". Was it hyperbole? Was it literal? I have heard people say New Orleans was "gone" but that wasn't really true now was it?
4. We don't know how sturdy the press was itself.
3.

[brasil]

Sophomore level enginnering has a class callled Statics. In it, you learn to draw free body diagrams of systems and equilibriate force. If I hold a stick, apply a force at one end, my free body diagram requires the ground to apply an equal and opposite direction force to balance it. Also a moment. This is whether the stick bends or not.

I apologize that I cannot quote the Statics book that this is from but it is in EVERY book on Statics.

So we would expect the ground to see force in oppostion to the plane impact.

I have not taken a "statics" class, although my father (the structural engineer) most certainly has. Next time I talk to him maybe i'll ask. However, very basic understanding of newtons laws should be enough to cause me to have questions about the seismic data. Witnesses in the buildings reported that the towers swayed back and forth to such an extent that they thought the buildings might "topple over." The buildings were designed to be flexible enough to be able to absorb the energy of very strong winds. When strong winds caused the towers to sway back and forth, did that also cause smaller, yet still measurable seismic effects? If this energy is so efficiently being transferred to the ground you would think they would.

My admittedly limited understanding of the physics involved still tells me that the majority of the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the back and forth motion of the buildings, not the ground. If the buildings truly were "static" and did not move at all, then perhaps all or most of the energy would have transmitted to the ground, but they were not. How much energy do you suppose it would take to cause the top of the tower to sway a few feet in either direction a few times?

Did my Columbia colleagues address the physics of the planes hitting buildings, or simply state that nothing about their data makes them conclude that explosives were used, but also that explosives were not used? I don't think they know for sure, and just want to make sure no one believes they're arguing for explosives when they themselves don't know the answer.

[beachnut]

reading it now.... looks interesting.
I do not consider 10,000 gallons of jet fuel at 700 feet above me to be 1000 feet away! I consider the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel and jet parts, and other damaged stuff to be real close to me soon (this is why some of that voodoo math stuff comes in handy when you work with g). You must get a handle on up and down, and left and right. You truthers always forget gravity and have zero idea on structures and impacts. Poor brazil is way too smart to be posting here; he needs to feel better and post at the high IQ LCF! Sorry, but you did say you were very well informed on 9/11 stuff, but you are still reading?

[R.Mackey]

R.Mackey:

"On what basis do you claim that the jet fuel vapor would "take time" to fill a room, time enough for people in the room to detect it and evacuate?"

On the basis that the state of the jet fuel when it reached the basement was either a) already burning or b) in liquid form. If it was already burning, then vapor is out of the question. If it was in liquid form, it would take quite a bit of time to evaporate into enough vapor to fill the room and then ignite.

You have no reason whatsoever to assume the jet fuel was either "already burning" or "in liquid form." The overwhelming majority of jet fuel -- in the seconds after crashing into a fixed, steel structure at cruising speed! -- would have been dashed to small droplets. Any large flows that remained would have been further aereated during its several hundred foot fall to the basement. Your premise is absurd!

Well aereated jet fuel can and does explode. The jet fuel that made it to the basement was well aerated, and even heated by the friction of impact and the fireballs above. We also know for a fact that the majority of jet fuel was not contained in the initial fireball -- there isn't enough oxygen in the first tenth of a second -- so it's not necessarily "on fire" either. There are plenty of points of ignition, but not all of the fuel was "on fire." Only a small fraction of it.

Very, very simple.


"The jet fuel impacted the structure at either 450+ or 550+ MPH, depending on which structure we're talking about, and poured straight down several hundred feet of elevator shaft. The jet fuel/air mix thus created would have been heated but not all burned due to the fireball at impact, which briefly created an oxygen-poor environment on the upper floors. Falling elevators in those same shafts could even have created negative pressure in those shafts, sucking the fuel/air mix along with them."

Do we really know for sure what state the jet fuel was in when it made its way down the elevator shaft? From the video of the second impact, we can see that a majority of the jet fuel exploded outside the building, and yet, Philip Morelli describes virtually identical conditions in the basement of WTC2 as he had just experienced in WTC1.

Yes. It was a mixture of liquid and vapor. Most of the liquid was in drops, not large pools. Some was absorbed by furniture and other porous surfaces. Some would collect into pools over time. But there's so much fuel around -- about 24,000 pounds of it, in each tower -- that there's an overwhelming surplus of jet fuel in all states, ready to explode and ready to burn. That's why we saw both effects in both towers.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that an "elevator/fuel/air" mixture fell at great speed from the tops of the building and did not ignite until it had reached the base of the building, creating blast effects on 3 or 4 floors, from the lobby down to the sub-basements. You are also saying that this fuel/air mixture survived the sparks and heat we would expect of an elevator falling that fast, and managed to fill whole basement areas with vapor, and only then ignite? Also, how did this liquid jet fuel get a chance to evenly mix with air in the shafts? Wouldn't it have just dripped down the same way as if you poured water down the shaft? From watching youtube videos of the military's fuel/air explosives in action, it seems to be a pretty tricky process to combine the fuel and air to the point that it becomes explosive. I don't see any such conditions in the elevator shafts.

Strawman city. The initial fuel/air mixture was oxygen depleted, and could not all burn at once. As it progressed downward, it mixed with fresh air. It doesn't, of course, have to "mix evenly." If it had, the resulting explosion would have been enormous, probably enough to destroy the Tower right then and there, as I explained in the other thread.

Yes, there probably was some fuel dripping down. But that aereates it as well. If you drip fuel several hundred feet onto a hard surface, like, oh, the rails or bottom of an elevator shaft, it will splash and aerate quite nicely on contact.

We don't require "even mixing" and we don't require a precise fuel/air ratio. There is a range of fuel/air ratios for which jet fuel can deflagrate. Areas of the mixture that were in this ratio and found a source of ignition would deflagrate. Areas that weren't would either dissipate (if too fuel-poor), ignite and burn (if too fuel-rich) or possibly deflagrate later (also if too fuel-rich). But there's so much jet fuel in play -- and our energy requirements are so reasonable -- that we don't need it all to deflagrate at once. We only need, at worst, about 1% of it in the basement. With a more careful estimate, perhaps only 0.1% must deflagrate to create the destruction in the basement.

It's completely reasonable no matter how you look at it.


"Conditions are perfect for a backdraft situation, in the basement, a few seconds to a few tens of seconds after impact. I have no idea how anyone could conclude otherwise."

I am not concluding that backdraft is not a possibility, I'm hypothesizing that backdraft and the other conditions mentioned are not sufficient to create blast effects from the lobby to the basements, and almost identically (according to Philip Morelli) in both towers, despite very different impact scenarios.

So far you've offered no support for that hypothesis at all. Everything about the event checks: The size and degree of the damage area, people burned but not concussed, the timing, reports of fireballs, absolutely everything. Your burden of proof is rather high.


I need to learn more about backdraft and how it applies to exploding jet fuel almost 1000 ft. above the area we are told was affected. Has backdraft ever been known to create effects at such a distance in the history of firefighting? I'm going to read up on backdraft, but I want to hear your thoughts (DGM and R.Mackey).

We happen to have an almost ideal example of historical precedent -- the B-25 vs. Empire State Building (http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm) episode. In this accident, deflagrations occurred about five floors away from the impact and six seconds later, and in this case the fuel path was impeded by stairs rather than falling straight through one or more open elevator shafts.

Given that the B-25 carried about twenty times less fuel (http://www.b25.net/pages/b25spec.html), maximum, and the one that hit the Empire State Building was landing and probably well below its maximum capacity, it's not surprising in the least that the WTC impacts would flow fuel for a greater distance. Particularly when channeled into elevator shafts.

[ElMondoHummus]

My admittedly limited understanding of the physics involved still tells me that the majority of the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the back and forth motion of the buildings, not the ground. If the buildings truly were "static" and did not move at all, then perhaps all or most of the energy would have transmitted to the ground, but they were not. How much energy do you suppose it would take to cause the top of the tower to sway a few feet in either direction a few times?


I think this was addressed by Frank Greening (please correct me if I'm misremembering this!) and discussed by other engineers in this forum here. I'll try to find the posts when I get a chance.

But, in all due respect, it may be a leap to a conclusion to assume that "the majority of the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the back and forth motion of the buildings, not the ground". It's possible that it wasn't the "majority of the energy from the impacts", but merely a fraction smaller than that.

Again, I'll try to find the relevant posts when I can. Or, if anyone here remembers them, they can chime in too.

Anyway, bottom line is: That's a quantitative claim without any numbers accompanying it. Is there any chance you can get more specific as to why you believe that building sway absorbed most of the impact energy? Also: That point has been addressed before. If you have the time, you can do a search for those posts and see what has been said before. That might help advance the discussion to firmer grounds.

[ElMondoHummus]

Whoops! Brasil, ignore my posts temporarily in favor of R. Mackey's. He addresses the jet fuel - explosion issue in detail. Much more important than what I had to say.

[R.Mackey]

I think this was addressed by Frank Greening (please correct me if I'm misremembering this!) and discussed by other engineers in this forum here. I'll try to find the posts when I get a chance.

But, in all due respect, it may be a leap to a conclusion to assume that "the majority of the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the back and forth motion of the buildings, not the ground". It's possible that it wasn't the "majority of the energy from the impacts", but merely a fraction smaller than that.


The discussion began here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2674223#post2674223), with Dr. Greening providing several historical examples. Poster Gregory Urich actually argued that too little energy was transmitted seismically by the collapses. I don't agree -- but it's still up for debate.

We didn't explicitly talk about the seismic signals from the impacts, but we can do an energy comparision between impact and collapse to scale this argument to fit. If you do so, you will find that the energy transmission is quite reasonable and in-line with other seismic events related to construction and things like mining accidents.

Also, again, it is not energy that seismographs detect, but displacement. A seismic wave is not necessarily all that dissipative, so a relatively small event (in terms of energy) can be measured (in terms of displacement). There is no energy shortage.

ETA: I had misremembered the course of the discussion. I have corrected who took what position, but you should go read it for yourself.

[GregoryUrich]

1. brasil has indicated he knows the 50 tonnes does not refer to the weight.


2. brasil: making an assumption based on what you believe should or should not have happened, while being your right, does not carry much weight here. If you have some science for this particular scenario to show us, that makes the fireball an extremely unlikely candidate to cause the destruction described, now would be a good time to present it.

TAM:)

Regarding 2, do you have any science showing that a fireball could cause the observed damage?

[ElMondoHummus]

The discussion began here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2674223#post2674223), with Dr. Greening providing several historical examples. Poster Gregory Urich actually argued that too little energy was transmitted seismically by the collapses. I don't agree -- but it's still up for debate.

We didn't explicitly talk about the seismic signals from the impacts, but we can do an energy comparision between impact and collapse to scale this argument to fit. If you do so, you will find that the energy transmission is quite reasonable and in-line with other seismic events related to construction and things like mining accidents.

Also, again, it is not energy that seismographs detect, but displacement. A seismic wave is not necessarily all that dissipative, so a relatively small event (in terms of energy) can be measured (in terms of displacement). There is no energy shortage.

ETA: I had misremembered the course of the discussion. I have corrected who took what position, but you should go read it for yourself.

Yes, thank you Mackey. A search has also revealed it to have been discussed here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85531

... although as merely one of the many points touched in that thread (as in most threads, there's serious meandering of the topics :) so some work is required to get at posts specific to a given subject).

Anyway, this can be put aside. Again, Mr. Mackey's post on the fuel is of some substance, and worthy of discussion in regards to what Brasil wrote about its ability to cause the damage. Brasil: Would you mind addressing the points in his post?

Thank you.

[Lurker]

Math is an abstraction used to back up observation in the real world. No amount of math can justify a violation of the laws of physics. If you don't have a proper reply to my, or others' questions, don't post.

But you have not shown a cntradiction between math and physics, have you? Did I miss something? The closest I have seen is you proving an opinion that the fireball could not obliterate the press.

[T.A.M.]

Gregory:

Fireball is such a vague term. How big was the fireball? Was it in a confined space, and then blasted out, or was it in a wide open space? What type of damage are you looking for an explanation for? The burns to the people nearby? The marble in the lobby? the press? Other?

See all of these variables would be important, but I am not a physicist, and engineer, or a fire/demolition expert. The difference here is, I DO NOT EXPECT MY OPINION ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER, to matter much, as I am not arguing (I was making comment), where as brasil was trying to prove a point, so he should have a little something more than "what he thinks should have happened" if he expects to win the argument.

but thanks for inquiring.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

it works like this Greg:

Respected authorities in these matters (Fire Protection Engineers, the NIST scientists, the FEMA scientists, etc...) have explained what happened as being the result of a fireball that travelled down the elevator shaft.

Now I have no reason to doubt them, and they certainly know better than me.

So if someone is going to come here and argue that the "fireball down the elevator shaft" CANNOT EXPLAIN what happened, then one would expect to have a scientific explanation backing up this view, if they are to convince anyone the experts are wrong...

Sound reasonable?

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

Gregory:

Fireball is such a vague term. How big was the fireball? Was it in a confined space, and then blasted out, or was it in a wide open space? What type of damage are you looking for an explanation for? The burns to the people nearby? The marble in the lobby? the press? Other?

T.A.M. and Gregory: You probably haven't seen it, but I computed rigorously that jet fuel is way more than adequate for the task in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3193586#post3193586), my Point 3. about halfway through it.

[brasil]

So far you've offered no support for that hypothesis at all. Everything about the event checks: The size and degree of the damage area, people burned but not concussed, the timing, reports of fireballs, absolutely everything. Your burden of proof is rather high.

I'm not at the "find support for my hypothesis" stage yet. I'm still refining it based on the (few) intelligent, on-topic replies I'm getting. I disagree, in theory, on so many of your points, but my next reply to you will be more researched. So far I'm just thinking it through for myself - imagine that.

The point I most strongly disagree with is your idea that it's so simple and such a "given" that un-ignited jet fuel could go from:

1) inside the wings, in liquid form
2) smashing against the steel frame of the building
3) passing through multiple floors of the tower,most of it on fire, with a majority exiting the building in the case of WTC2
4) breaking through the core near the elevator shafts
5) falling hundreds of feet on top of elevators
6) getting past the elevators, now in a conveniently mixed "fuel/air" state

to: igniting and exploding with such force that it caused clear blast effects in the lobby (as seen in the fireman's video) and clear descriptions of blast effects on 2, 3, or even 4 sub-basement floors.

You say:

"You have no reason whatsoever to assume the jet fuel was either "already burning" or "in liquid form." The overwhelming majority of jet fuel -- in the seconds after crashing into a fixed, steel structure at cruising speed! -- would have been dashed to small droplets."

I have every reason to believe it was already burning (and less reason to believe it was in liquid form). The videos clearly show massive, fiery explosions, with flames shooting out the sides of the buildings! If I remember correctly, the NIST report assumes massive fireballs passing across the impact floors. If that's not a reason to assume that it's "already burning" then I don't know what is. I think is it you who has no reason whatsoever to assume that the fuel was in a state after impact for large quantities of it to find it's way to the basement in an un-ignited state.

Secondly, you are saying that in the seconds after the impact the fuel "would have been dashed to small droplets." Isn't a mass of jet fuel in the form of "small droplets," mixed with the air, in the perfect fuel/air state you are saying is ripe to explode? With all of that fire around from the impact, how would this cloud of "small droplets" find it's way down the elevator shafts to the basement? It seems if it's in "cloud" or "mist" form, it's not likely to suddenly head for the basement. Seems it's in a perfect state to just explode right then and there.

This is why I thought the only possible form it could be in to make it all the way down those shafts is liquid form. Now you're saying it had to be in small droplet form, and I tend to agree with that for the most part, but if that's true, then how did it get to the basement? Please explain while I take some time to reply to your other points.

[Alferd_Packer]

Ok, it's possible that it tipped over if it was that kind of press. The photo of the press I posted could have been what it looked like, and that one definitely looks like it's not the kind that tips over. Pecoraro seemed genuinely shocked that his press was nowhere to be seen, but it sounds like you wouldn't be if it was the kind you have. The one I linked to is here (looks pretty old):

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachinery.com/img_used_equipment/used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine%20%282%29.jpg



This is what happens when some one has limited experience with how things work in the real world, especially that of building maintenance.

Why would they have a specialty press for bending sheet metal in the basement of the WTC towers? A very expensive piece of equipment that has to be run constantly in order to repay the capital investment in it.

What they would have had was a simple, low cost press like this,

http://www.filtreccorp.com/catalog/images/78058A.jpg

which is very handy in a building maintenance shop for replacing motor bearings.

[Lurker]

I have not taken a "statics" class, although my father (the structural engineer) most certainly has. Next time I talk to him maybe i'll ask. However, very basic understanding of newtons laws should be enough to cause me to have questions about the seismic data. Witnesses in the buildings reported that the towers swayed back and forth to such an extent that they thought the buildings might "topple over." The buildings were designed to be flexible enough to be able to absorb the energy of very strong winds. When strong winds caused the towers to sway back and forth, did that also cause smaller, yet still measurable seismic effects? If this energy is so efficiently being transferred to the ground you would think they would.
I would imagine that the force causing the swaying would be transmitted to the ground.

My admittedly limited understanding of the physics involved still tells me that the majority of the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the back and forth motion of the buildings, not the ground. If the buildings truly were "static" and did not move at all, then perhaps all or most of the energy would have transmitted to the ground, but they were not. How much energy do you suppose it would take to cause the top of the tower to sway a few feet in either direction a few times?

Careful, you are mixing energy and force here. Whether the bldg was static or not, the force balance would be the same, even with a impact wave going down the structure.

[GregoryUrich]

On what basis do you claim that the jet fuel vapor would "take time" to fill a room, time enough for people in the room to detect it and evacuate?

The jet fuel impacted the structure at either 450+ or 550+ MPH, depending on which structure we're talking about, and poured straight down several hundred feet of elevator shaft. The jet fuel/air mix thus created would have been heated but not all burned due to the fireball at impact, which briefly created an oxygen-poor environment on the upper floors. Falling elevators in those same shafts could even have created negative pressure in those shafts, sucking the fuel/air mix along with them.

Conditions are perfect for a backdraft situation, in the basement, a few seconds to a few tens of seconds after impact. I have no idea how anyone could conclude otherwise.

Freefall from the impact zone to the basement (of WTC 1 anyway) is around 8 seconds so anything less than that is not realistic. For a runaway elevator though, the resistance due to air pressure will be considerable in a closed shaft. Also due the over-pressure on the underside of the elevator, compressed air will be rushing out of the spaces between the elevator and the shaft walls, which will minimize the ability of the elevator to pull the fuel/air mix after it.

I don't think it's realistic to think of this as a fuel-air explosion in terms of fuel-air bombs which have much better means of dispersion. I think fireball is a more apt term.

[brasil]

T.A.M. and Gregory: You probably haven't seen it, but I computed rigorously that jet fuel is way more than adequate for the task in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3193586#post3193586), my Point 3. about halfway through it.

As you know, I read that post, and if your stats for MJ/kg of jet fuel as compared to TNT are correct, then I can believe the energy potential is present in jet fuel, however, the point I continue to drive home is that for that energy to be released from the jet fuel in such a way as to cause a blast (meaning, something with a real shockwave capable of knocking down walls, blowing out windows, and even toppling or destroying a press, on multiple floors of a concrete and steel building), it has to be in a very specific state, namely the "fuel/air" mix we keep referring to. To get from liquid in the wings to "fuel/air vapor" in the basement is a huge stretch of the imagination, IMO. Burning fireballs shooting down the elevators: likely. Fuel/air mist traveling that far and then exploding in the basement: not likely at all.

[T.A.M.]

T.A.M. and Gregory: You probably haven't seen it, but I computed rigorously that jet fuel is way more than adequate for the task in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3193586#post3193586), my Point 3. about halfway through it.

Thanks Mackey, I did miss it, but have since read it.

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

I'm not at the "find support for my hypothesis" stage yet. I'm still refining it based on the (few) intelligent, on-topic replies I'm getting. I disagree, in theory, on so many of your points, but my next reply to you will be more researched. So far I'm just thinking it through for myself - imagine that.

Your assertions are far too strongly worded for one who is merely "thinking it through." Nevertheless, take all the time you need.


The point I most strongly disagree with is your idea that it's so simple and such a "given" that un-ignited jet fuel could go from:

1) inside the wings, in liquid form
2) smashing against the steel frame of the building
3) passing through multiple floors of the tower,most of it on fire, with a majority exiting the building in the case of WTC2
4) breaking through the core near the elevator shafts
5) falling hundreds of feet on top of elevators
6) getting past the elevators, now in a conveniently mixed "fuel/air" state

The portions I have bolded are strawman arguments. To wit:

3) "Most of it" was not on fire. See below.
4) The aircraft structure and fracture would also contribute to opening the elevator shafts. Fuel doesn't have to do that by itself, even though NIST suggests that it easily could.
5) It could fall on top of elevators, flow down as a vapor or mist behind the elevators, or run down the sides. Probably all of the above.
6) There is no requirement to "get past the elevators." We do not have a precise spot where ignition began, and it was a large volumetric event.

Correcting these errors, I see nothing particularly remarkable about this hypothesis.


to: igniting and exploding with such force that it caused clear blast effects in the lobby (as seen in the fireman's video) and clear descriptions of blast effects on 2, 3, or even 4 sub-basement floors.

I've already demonstrated, rigorously, that the amount of fuel required to do this is quite modest.


"You have no reason whatsoever to assume the jet fuel was either "already burning" or "in liquid form." The overwhelming majority of jet fuel -- in the seconds after crashing into a fixed, steel structure at cruising speed! -- would have been dashed to small droplets."

I have every reason to believe it was already burning (and less reason to believe it was in liquid form). The videos clearly show massive, fiery explosions, with flames shooting out the sides of the buildings! If I remember correctly, the NIST report assumes massive fireballs passing across the impact floors. If that's not a reason to assume that it's "already burning" then I don't know what is. I think is it you who has no reason whatsoever to assume that the fuel was in a state after impact for large quantities of it to find it's way to the basement in an un-ignited state.

No. NIST explains -- and you can calculate for yourself, using an estimate of the fireball size -- that there simply wasn't enough oxygen to combust or even ignite all the fuel at once. I've already explained this to you. I'm not sure explaining it again will do any good at this point.

NIST estimated that only 20% of the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball. It's a rough estimate, but it's probably good to +/- 10%. That leaves a vast quantity of fuel, all of it locally oxygen starved, all still traveling at high velocity...


Secondly, you are saying that in the seconds after the impact the fuel "would have been dashed to small droplets." Isn't a mass of jet fuel in the form of "small droplets," mixed with the air, in the perfect fuel/air state you are saying is ripe to explode? With all of that fire around from the impact, how would this cloud of "small droplets" find it's way down the elevator shafts to the basement? It seems if it's in "cloud" or "mist" form, it's not likely to suddenly head for the basement. Seems it's in a perfect state to just explode right then and there.

There were other fireballs observed. I'd have to go back to NCSTAR1-7 to check, but there were fireballs observed on I think the 45th floor of WTC1, but no fireballs seen on several floors above and below. Local conditions will dictate where and how much fuel ignites, and whether it deflagrates or merely burns. Nothing unusual about this at all.


This is why I thought the only possible form it could be in to make it all the way down those shafts is liquid form. Now you're saying it had to be in small droplet form, and I tend to agree with that for the most part, but if that's true, then how did it get to the basement? Please explain while I take some time to reply to your other points.

Down the elevator shafts. I've already explained this too. Mist, drops, streams, pools, whatever -- the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above, take your pick. Fuel that enters the shaft as liquid will aereate as it falls. Fuel that enters as entrained mist is already aereated. Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air, and this could happen anywhere along the way depending on its density.

I'm still baffled about why this scenario even seems implausible. Crash a fuel-laden jetliner into a building, and you're going to get fireballs. Not just one, either. This seems absolutely trivial to grasp.

[R.Mackey]

Freefall from the impact zone to the basement (of WTC 1 anyway) is around 8 seconds so anything less than that is not realistic. For a runaway elevator though, the resistance due to air pressure will be considerable in a closed shaft. Also due the over-pressure on the underside of the elevator, compressed air will be rushing out of the spaces between the elevator and the shaft walls, which will minimize the ability of the elevator to pull the fuel/air mix after it.

About eight seconds is what I expect. There's no evidence of a fireball occurring faster than this. William Rodriguez's account speaks of a fireball some seconds after extricating two survivors from the freight elevator, so perhaps 15 seconds or even more.

The pressure situation in the elevator shafts will be complicated -- but the falling elevator will entrain vapors, even if the shaft is hermetically sealed, and there's no reason to suppose it was.

I don't think it's realistic to think of this as a fuel-air explosion in terms of fuel-air bombs which have much better means of dispersion. I think fireball is a more apt term.

I agree. This is why we speak of deflagration rather than detonation. The phenomenology in the basement is not a good fit to an optimized FAE.

[R.Mackey]

As you know, I read that post, and if your stats for MJ/kg of jet fuel as compared to TNT are correct, then I can believe the energy potential is present in jet fuel, however, the point I continue to drive home is that for that energy to be released from the jet fuel in such a way as to cause a blast (meaning, something with a real shockwave capable of knocking down walls, blowing out windows, and even toppling or destroying a press, on multiple floors of a concrete and steel building), it has to be in a very specific state, namely the "fuel/air" mix we keep referring to. To get from liquid in the wings to "fuel/air vapor" in the basement is a huge stretch of the imagination, IMO. Burning fireballs shooting down the elevators: likely. Fuel/air mist traveling that far and then exploding in the basement: not likely at all.

Completely wrong. I've discussed the fallacy of a "very specific" fuel/air mixture above. There is no requirement for a "shockwave," and there is strong evidence against any "shockwave." What we need is an overpressure event, but we do not require nor expect a supersonic one.

Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects.

[Lurker]

To get from liquid in the wings to "fuel/air vapor" in the basement is a huge stretch of the imagination, IMO. Burning fireballs shooting down the elevators: likely. Fuel/air mist traveling that far and then exploding in the basement: not likely at all.

This is clearly an argument based on personal incredulity. I myself wonder about these things but I am no expert or even pretend to be one with regards to explosives and combustion. Neither are you as it appears you have less relevent eduction on this matter than I have had (I had one class in engine cycles). But it does appear that RMackey has some level of expertise, at least more than you or I, in this area. Why do you flatly dismiss his more learned opinion and instead cling to an opinion with far less learning behind it? It is illogical.

By the way, your personal incredulity is based on so many things you (nor I) have any idea about. Plane crashes are quite chaotic. We don't even know the layout or details on how the fuel moved in the building although I did see a neat animation from an analysis showing it.

[beachnut]

Completely wrong. I've discussed the fallacy of a "very specific" fuel/air mixture above. There is no requirement for a "shockwave," and there is strong evidence against any "shockwave." What we need is an overpressure event, but we do not require nor expect a supersonic one.

Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects.
I have a feeling he will not grasp the idea of pressure, maybe he has never slammed a car door and blown a window all over the driveway into tiny little pieces of glass. The only thing complex about 9/11 is explaining each trivial results of 19 terrorist in 4 large jets to total idiots who do not understand the ideas in the first place; then the hardest of all is talking to biased political engineers who have signed up blindly to nut case petitions and they try to make up science stuff to support their membership in woo. As those who want to see CT all over grasp onto the results of the terrorist, they have failed to gain the education to understand math and physics, and the marvels of our physical existence

Sorry, I was thinking of all the times I have seen the physical world meet dummies like me who thought something could not happen. But now at least I am witnessing idiots who are trying to back in science to support their CT ideas; like 9/11 truth they will fail or learn how to think rationally and search for the reason something happen instead of making up lies and trying to fit false conclusions to warped analysis.

You continue to help these few "smart" truthers to see if they choose to understand. Good work, thanks for taking a little time to explain things to those who do not care for truth or evidence.

[brasil]

Down the elevator shafts. I've already explained this too. Mist, drops, streams, pools, whatever -- the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above, take your pick. Fuel that enters the shaft as liquid will aereate as it falls. Fuel that enters as entrained mist is already aereated. Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air, and this could happen anywhere along the way depending on its density.

I'm still baffled about why this scenario even seems implausible. Crash a fuel-laden jetliner into a building, and you're going to get fireballs. Not just one, either. This seems absolutely trivial to grasp.

No one is disputing "fireballs." There's your "strawman" of the day.

You're making a ridiculous number of assumptions here. There is a world of difference between "mist" and "pools." Mist is going to act a lot more like a gas, which means it will tend to expand and find any outlet to normalize in pressure (maybe a little in the elevator shafts, but a lot out the gaping holes in the building).

"the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above"

All of this is a stretch, especially if you're going to hold to your "droplet" theory from your last post.

"Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air"

Has anyone ever mentioned this "self-igniting" as happening in reference to 9-11?

For the time being, let's only talk about WTC2. Philip Morelli is on the video I posted explaining he experienced the almost identical "blast" phenomena there as he had in WTC1. What makes WTC2 interesting is that the plane hit the corner and a large amount of jet fuel exploded on the outside. In that post I'm still reading - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099 - only WTC1 is being talked about. NIST hypothesizes (they don't know, and no one ever will know for sure) that 40% drained into the "lower structure" at WTC1. "Lower Structure" doesn't mean "all to the basement." I think it's safe to assume that a lot less than 40% drained to lower floors in the case of WTC2, because a lot more of it burned up outside the building.

[R.Mackey]

Have you ever heard a car backfire?

This doesn't happen so often in these days of AFMs, precision injection, and OBD-III, but it used to happen all the time in older vehicles.

What happens is that the vehicle is running fuel-rich. Combustion in the cylinders does not burn off all the fuel, and so some fuel vapor is expelled in the exhaust stroke.

This excess fuel is not "on fire," despite the fact that it was contained in a nearly ideal ignition event. So it does not exit the cylinder "on fire." It's hot, but not burning.

Over time, this fuel collects in the exhaust system, usually in the muffler near the baffles. There is also a small amount of oxygen entrainment, particularly if your exhaust system is leaky, as many are. When the fuel-oxygen mixture reaches just the right point, such that the flash point is equal to the temperature of the exhaust system, it deflagrates -- creating a loud BANG. A bad backfire can actually punch holes in your (steel) muffler.

This is, in microcosm, what we anticipate in the WTC fireballs. The initial impact is fuel-rich. Fuel travels through the structure, not as a single blob of liquid but somewhat dispersed. New oxygen is entrained. There are plenty of sources of ignition. Where and when it ignites or explodes is difficult to predict. Those explosions can produce considerable force.

Like I said, simple.

[Lurker]

No one is disputing "fireballs." There's your "strawman" of the day.

You're making a ridiculous number of assumptions here. There is a world of difference between "mist" and "pools." Mist is going to act a lot more like a gas, which means it will tend to expand and find any outlet to normalize in pressure (maybe a little in the elevator shafts, but a lot out the gaping holes in the building).
True. The gas will follow paths of least resistance. The wider the orifice the more of the gas will flow into it. A hole into the elevator shafts is a pretty big hole. I am sure that much went through the building or out other areas.

"the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above"

All of this is a stretch, especially if you're going to hold to your "droplet" theory from your last post.

I see nothing wrong with his statement. Where is the stretch specifically? You have already said it acts more like a gas. Pressure acting on a gas will accelerate it into an opening, right?

"Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air"

Has anyone ever mentioned this "self-igniting" as happening in reference to 9-11?
Hmm, a year or so ago I had some oil on the stove that I was heating up to deep fry chimichangas. I had put the lid on and left it there a bit too long. When I took the lid off, the oil immediately went on fire as the oxygen rushed in. No spark required. This is the flash point.

[R.Mackey]

No one is disputing "fireballs." There's your "strawman" of the day.

Then you should just call it quits. If you accept fireballs on the 45th floor, you should accept one in the basement. Same phenomenon.


You're making a ridiculous number of assumptions here. There is a world of difference between "mist" and "pools." Mist is going to act a lot more like a gas, which means it will tend to expand and find any outlet to normalize in pressure (maybe a little in the elevator shafts, but a lot out the gaping holes in the building).

No matter how the fuel starts, as it travels, it gets aereated. You yourself said you accepted my estimate of fuel volume reaching the basement. It's not likely to get there as a well-contained, unoxygenated globule of liquid.


"the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above"

All of this is a stretch, especially if you're going to hold to your "droplet" theory from your last post.

No it's not. You're simply contradicting me, now.


"Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air"

Has anyone ever mentioned this "self-igniting" as happening in reference to 9-11?

It's only one of many options. I also speculate that the elevator impacts down below could very, very easily create electrical shorts -- this might explain why no fireballs (if I remember correctly) were seen between the 45th floor and the basement. Local damage would create a higher probability of ignition in areas isolated from the falling fuel that was burning, on the outside of the Towers.


For the time being, let's only talk about WTC2. Philip Morelli is on the video I posted explaining he experienced the almost identical "blast" phenomena there as he had in WTC1. What makes WTC2 interesting is that the plane hit the corner and a large amount of jet fuel exploded on the outside. In that post I'm still reading - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099 - only WTC1 is being talked about. NIST hypothesizes (they don't know, and no one ever will know for sure) that 40% drained into the "lower structure" at WTC1. "Lower Structure" doesn't mean "all to the basement." I think it's safe to assume that a lot less than 40% drained to lower floors in the case of WTC2, because a lot more of it burned up outside the building.

NIST's 40% estimate is rough, but remember, you only need less than 1% in the basement. There isn't that much difference between WTC 1 and 2 in this respect, only a slightly different path from impact zone to basement. Fuel quantities and distance are similar.

[DGM]

No one is disputing "fireballs." There's your "strawman" of the day.

You're making a ridiculous number of assumptions here. There is a world of difference between "mist" and "pools." Mist is going to act a lot more like a gas, which means it will tend to expand and find any outlet to normalize in pressure (maybe a little in the elevator shafts, but a lot out the gaping holes in the building).

"the fuel can fall down, get sucked down by the elevators, get blown down by the pressure wave above"

All of this is a stretch, especially if you're going to hold to your "droplet" theory from your last post.

"Fuel that enters as partially combusted, oxygen-starved heated vapor will self-ignite after ingesting the correct amount of fresh air"

Has anyone ever mentioned this "self-igniting" as happening in reference to 9-11?

For the time being, let's only talk about WTC2. Philip Morelli is on the video I posted explaining he experienced the almost identical "blast" phenomena there as he had in WTC1. What makes WTC2 interesting is that the plane hit the corner and a large amount of jet fuel exploded on the outside. In that post I'm still reading - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099 - only WTC1 is being talked about. NIST hypothesizes (they don't know, and no one ever will know for sure) that 40% drained into the "lower structure" at WTC1. "Lower Structure" doesn't mean "all to the basement." I think it's safe to assume that a lot less than 40% drained to lower floors in the case of WTC2, because a lot more of it burned up outside the building.
I believe if you read RMackeys work you will find he only used 1%. This is an extremely conservative figure.

Figure a 1 PSI over pressure on a 10'x10' wall. How much force would that wall have to resist?

[brasil]

Completely wrong. I've discussed the fallacy of a "very specific" fuel/air mixture above. There is no requirement for a "shockwave," and there is strong evidence against any "shockwave." What we need is an overpressure event, but we do not require nor expect a supersonic one.

Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects.

One thing most people in these forums do not accept, is that it's not always either/or. If I think explosives might have been in the basement, I am not automatically saying burning jet fuel didn't make it down there as well. Has anyone considered that it could be BOTH. Maybe that's what I'm suggesting in my current revision of my own "theory." I would be ignoring a lot of evidence of burnt victims with "skin hanging off their bodies" if I was trying to argue for ONLY explosives and NO fireball, would I not?

Please, what "strong evidence" is there against any shockwave? All of these witness accounts (Rodriguez, Morelli, and Pecoraro) contain some evidence for very strong blast effects i.e. shockwaves. Having evidence to not only over-rule their eyewitness testimony and go on to prove there were no shockwaves requires a much higher burden of proof. Also, aren't "shockwaves" exactly what seismographs measure? For Columbia to get a reading they were most certainly measuring a shockwave of some sort, regardless of its source.

"Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects."

On the contrary, you need jet fuel to be the "best match" to maintain your entire argument for no explosives. I'm sure high explosives in the right amount could have created "those effects." On what basis are you saying that explosives could not have been responsible for the observed effects by these witnesses?

[Arus808]

One thing most people in these forums do not accept, is that it's not always either/or.

In the case of the towers, ITS either or. IT isn't both.
Sorry, but when are you going to provide that evidence where explosive residue was detected?


If I think explosives might have been in the basement, I am not automatically saying burning jet fuel didn't make it down there as well. Has anyone considered that it could be BOTH.

Seeing that EVIDENCE doesn't support explosives, of course we dont consider that 'both' were present. BECAUSE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT ONLY JET FUEL WAS THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION!


You know that pesky thing called evidence

[R.Mackey]

One thing most people in these forums do not accept, is that it's not always either/or. If I think explosives might have been in the basement, I am not automatically saying burning jet fuel didn't make it down there as well. Has anyone considered that it could be BOTH. Maybe that's what I'm suggesting in my current revision of my own "theory." I would be ignoring a lot of evidence of burnt victims with "skin hanging off their bodies" if I was trying to argue for ONLY explosives and NO fireball, would I not?

You would indeed be ignoring evidence of fireballs if you were "only" arguing for explosives, which other posters here have failed to grasp.

But if that's the case, you need to find some evidence for explosives. What you're postulating now is a totally distinct event, one that would have been heard and felt by everyone in the basement, one whose effects would have been seen, but in addition to the fireballs.

Nobody reports this. Not even Rodriguez.


Please, what "strong evidence" is there against any shockwave? All of these witness accounts (Rodriguez, Morelli, and Pecoraro) contain some evidence for very strong blast effects i.e. shockwaves.

The fact that nobody was killed by blast pretty much rules out high explosives.

If you want to outline the things that you think were caused, and could only be caused, by explosives, I'll be glad to point out further problems with this hypothesis. At the moment, I have no idea what effects if any you think are tied to explosives.


Having evidence to not only over-rule their eyewitness testimony and go on to prove there were no shockwaves requires a much higher burden of proof.

I haven't "over-ruled" eyewitness testimony.

Also, aren't "shockwaves" exactly what seismographs measure? For Columbia to get a reading they were most certainly measuring a shockwave of some sort, regardless of its source.

Nope. You do not need a shockwave to create a seismic signal. This is total nonsense.


"Once again, jet fuel is the best match. No high explosive could have created those effects."

On the contrary, you need jet fuel to be the "best match" to maintain your entire argument for no explosives. I'm sure high explosives in the right amount could have created "those effects." On what basis are you saying that explosives could not have been responsible for the observed effects by these witnesses?

As I explained in the other thread, for an explosive to have caused the scope of damage seen, it would have to have been considerably larger than the bomb set off in 1993. Such a bomb would have killed many people in the basement through blast alone. Such a bomb would have been clearly audible, and recorded in the case of the WTC 2 impact. Such a bomb would register clearly on the LDEO seismic record as a distinct and spectrally pure spike. None of this happened, ergo, no bomb.

But a fuel deflagration still fits the evidence. We also know there was fuel in the structure, and people reported fireballs. QED.

[brasil]

The fact that nobody was killed by blast pretty much rules out high explosives.

Wrong: Philip Morelli states in his video interview (which I posted previously) that "I saw people killed in the basement" in addition to saying he saw people who needed "reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." He is saying this in the context of the initial blasts he personally observed in both WTC1 and WTC2. Just because you keep repeating over and over that "there was no evidence of explosives" does not make it so. Why do you think Rodriguez, Pecoraro, and Morelli are still being talked about continuously with regard to this question of explosives? They are evidence for explosives going off, in addition to fireballs.


If you want to outline the things that you think were caused, and could only be caused, by explosives, I'll be glad to point out further problems with this hypothesis. At the moment, I have no idea what effects if any you think are tied to explosives.

I have already outlined those effects in my previous posts in this topic. Go back and read them again.

Nope. You do not need a shockwave to create a seismic signal. This is total nonsense.

I think it's crossing the line to call that "nonsense." There are over 6000 hits in a google search for the words "shockwave" and "seismograph." Here's a BBC story about "seismic shockwaves" being detected in Japan after an underground nuclear test. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6033893.stm I think you need to retract your comment that "shockwaves" have nothing to do with seismology. Haven't you ever heard them announce that "additional shockwaves have been measured" after the first earthquake?

As I explained in the other thread, for an explosive to have caused the scope of damage seen, it would have to have been considerably larger than the bomb set off in 1993. Such a bomb would have killed many people in the basement through blast alone. Such a bomb would have been clearly audible, and recorded in the case of the WTC 2 impact. Such a bomb would register clearly on the LDEO seismic record as a distinct and spectrally pure spike. None of this happened, ergo, no bomb.

Are you going to explain how a fireball originating almost 1000 ft. above the basement could have caused the "scope of damage seen?" Are you seriously saying that jet fuel dripping down from the top of the WTC and igniting could cause MORE damage than the 1993 bomb? I've never even heard anyone make that assertion, until you just did. I don't know anyone who would think that anything other than a bomb caused the damage seen in 1993, or greater than that amount of damage. I don't even understand how you could be saying this.

And finally, every criteria you list WAS observed: 1) the sound 2) audio and video recordings 3) the seismic record. How can you say "none of this happened" when ALL of it happened? It's just a matter of how one interprets the data. I don't know how the seismic recording will differ with a bomb compared to a plane hitting a building, and I don't think you know either. What we do know is that they recorded data at those times. You can't say this data does not exist, otherwise you are flat out ignoring it.

But a fuel deflagration still fits the evidence. We also know there was fuel in the structure, and people reported fireballs. QED.

No it doesn't. It fits some of the evidence, but not all of the evidence, hence, the title and topic of this thread, and why I'm not letting this go until either i'm convinced, you're convinced, or we run out of points to make. I'll be back after I understand "backdraft", "flash points of fuel," properties of the elevators, and anything else. There is just no way you have incontrovertible evidence, or even the best theory that no explosives were used. I'm not wed to my theory and will give it up if someone presents a better theory. You have not even close to doing that. Re-read my posts.

I'm off to go party NYC-style. Let's see what you've got tomorrow.

[Norseman]

Please, what "strong evidence" is there against any shockwave? All of these witness accounts (Rodriguez, Morelli, and Pecoraro) contain some evidence for very strong blast effects i.e. shockwaves. Having evidence to not only over-rule their eyewitness testimony and go on to prove there were no shockwaves requires a much higher burden of proof.


William Rodriguez to CNN september 11th 2001 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html):
RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble,
Here (http://911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175) you can listen to the video itself. Choose the video "CNN: Distant approach shot".

The large boom etc is something Rodriguez have made up in the years after 9/11. Pecoraro only described damage entirely consistent with a rapid pressure increase caused by deflagration of jet fuel. And Morelli was first pushed over by compressed air pushed out of elevator shaft 6/7 or 50 (or both) due to falling elevator cars. Then he experienced the over pressure from the jet fuel deflagration while he was in the bathroom.

In this presentation (http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/feh5/presentations/zalosh-backdraft.pdf)you can se how devastating a backdraft (deflagration) with mild over pressure can be.

[beachnut]

I'm off to go party NYC-style. Let's see what you've got tomorrow. All of your junk comes from 9/11 truth sites, the woo of 9/11 truth runs in all your posts. And you tried to act like you were not a truther. Sad, you seem to mislead on your first post! Party on, it seems you may be better at that than facts on 9/11. Have fun.

Wrong: Philip Morelli states in his video interview (which I posted previously) that "I saw people killed in the basement" in addition to saying he saw people who needed "reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." He is saying this in the context of the initial blasts he personally observed in both WTC1 and WTC2. Just because you keep repeating over and over that "there was no evidence of explosives" does not make it so. Why do you think Rodriguez, Pecoraro, and Morelli are still being talked about continuously with regard to this question of explosives? They are evidence for explosives going off, in addition to fireballs. Philip proves there were no explosives, darn, listen to his story, an explosion from explosives would kill him, but the phenomena from the jet impacts would just "blow" him down. Sorry, you lost this one, from an expert on flying and engineering, you have failed to pass on this woo too. If this is the way you are going to post, I mean you posted proof you are wrong with this video interview, you are lost; go party, you have to be better at that than this.

[MikeW]

Here (http://911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175) you can listen to the video itself. Choose the video "CNN: Distant approach shot".
Well spotted, but actually the full Rodriguez videos are available at http://911myths.com/index.php/William_Rodriguez . (Not that you were likely to find out for yourself, as I've not linked that page to any menu yet, but I'll get around to it eventually.)

[Norseman]

Well spotted, but actually the full Rodriguez videos are available at http://911myths.com/index.php/William_Rodriguez . (Not that you were likely to find out for yourself, as I've not linked that page to any menu yet, but I'll get around to it eventually.)

Thanks for the link. I spotted the short clip when I looked thorough some the Flight 175 videos you had put up some time ago. I am keenly following the development of your new site:)

[thewholesoul]

hey totovader and everbody, thewholesoul here

so maybe we could start off where we finished? morellini's testimony gives an account of two events (1) when he was walking he was thrown to the ground from the impact of the first event which he believed was in the loading dock. (2) when he was later running he experienced the second event which he assumed could have been the freight car when it collapsed.

now your initial explanation was that (1) was the plane impact + (2) was the evelvator.

you retracted this position when i pointed out the peculiarity of a plane impact 90+ floors above him causing him to be thrown to the ground. further more we know that people closer to the impact did not fall to the ground from the plane impact e.g. rodriguez and anthony which further decreased the plausibility of event (1) being the impact of a plane.

your next explanation was that (1) was the elevator and (2) was the "sound of the plane" impact.

but this explanation is clearly inconsistent with morellinis testimony since he seems to suggest that the second event (2), not the first, was the elevator crashing to the ground floor. besides would an elevator crashing to the basement floor cause a person to be thrown to the ground? perhaps? i would be sceptical.

but if event (1) was the elevator and event (2) was the "sound" of the plane impact travelling down the building. would the "sound" of the plane impact follow the elevator impact? the speed of sound is 340m/s, the plane impacted on the 93th floor which is roughly 355m above ground. so it would not take ANY longer than two seconds to reach the basement. the elevator fell because a fireball of jet fuel jetting down the elevator. so the fireball and the "sound of the plane impact" started the same time. but if the elevator fell at the speed of sound it and its occupants would surely have been crushed on impact. because the operator of the elevator survived we must reject this explanation. so the second event (2) could not have been the "sound" of the plane imapct.

so as a defender of the official story what is your explanation in relation to the testimony of morellini?

[beachnut]

hey totovader and everbody, thewholesoul here

so maybe we could start off where we finished? morellini's testimony gives an account of two events (1) when he was walking he was thrown to the ground from the impact of the first event which he believed was in the loading dock. (2) when he was later running he experienced the second event which he assumed could have been the freight car when it collapsed.

now your initial explanation was that (1) was the plane impact + (2) was the evelvator.

you retracted this position when i pointed out the peculiarity of a plane impact 90+ floors above him causing him to be thrown to the ground. further more we know that people closer to the impact did not fall to the ground from the plane impact e.g. rodriguez and anthony which further decreased the plausibility of event (1) being the impact of a plane.

your next explanation was that (1) was the elevator and (2) was the "sound of the plane" impact.

but this explanation is clearly inconsistent with morellinis testimony since he seems to suggest that the second event (2), not the first, was the elevator crashing to the ground floor. besides would an elevator crashing to the basement floor cause a person to be thrown to the ground? perhaps? i would be sceptical.

but if event (1) was the elevator and event (2) was the "sound" of the plane impact travelling down the building. would the "sound" of the plane impact follow the elevator impact? the speed of sound is 340m/s, the plane impacted on the 93th floor which is roughly 355m above ground. so it would not take ANY longer than two seconds to reach the basement. the elevator fell because a fireball of jet fuel jetting down the elevator. so the fireball and the "sound of the plane impact" started the same time. but if the elevator fell at the speed of sound it and its occupants would surely have been crushed on impact. because the operator of the elevator survived we must reject this explanation. so the second event (2) could not have been the "sound" of the plane imapct.

so as a defender of the official story what is your explanation in relation to the testimony of morellini?
Please tell me the speed of sound in steel, and buildings, as pertains to 9/11 and the perceptions of people in the basement.

19 terrorist took 4 planes and tried to kill Americans on 9/11. That is what happen on 9/11. Please explain why that does not fit the junk you will try to push after your initial stupid question? Your post included testimony that supports the "official story" you just are not capable of understanding it. (do I win the money, I want the 1,000 k bucks now!)

[R.Mackey]

Wrong: Philip Morelli states in his video interview (which I posted previously) that "I saw people killed in the basement" in addition to saying he saw people who needed "reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." He is saying this in the context of the initial blasts he personally observed in both WTC1 and WTC2. Just because you keep repeating over and over that "there was no evidence of explosives" does not make it so. Why do you think Rodriguez, Pecoraro, and Morelli are still being talked about continuously with regard to this question of explosives? They are evidence for explosives going off, in addition to fireballs.

I am not wrong.

These people were not killed by blast. They were killed (and injured) by blunt trauma, and fires, and so on. Not blast.

I would guess that Rodriguez and Pecoraro and Morelli are "still being talked about continuously" because the Truth Movement doesn't understand explosives, yet desperately wants there to be explosives, for reasons I've never been able to fathom. Whether or not my guess is correct, their statements are not consistent with explosives.


I have already outlined those effects in my previous posts in this topic. Go back and read them again.

You missed the point. You are now speculating -- and I think you're the only one to do so; certainly the only one I've ever encountered -- that there were (a) jet fuel deflagrations and (b) high explosive detonations at the same time. I need to know what effects you ascribe to what causes. Proceed.


I think it's crossing the line to call that "nonsense." There are over 6000 hits in a google search for the words "shockwave" and "seismograph." Here's a BBC story about "seismic shockwaves" being detected in Japan after an underground nuclear test. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6033893.stm I think you need to retract your comment that "shockwaves" have nothing to do with seismology. Haven't you ever heard them announce that "additional shockwaves have been measured" after the first earthquake?

I will not retract that comment. You do not need a shockwave to create a seismic signal. Seismographs can detect distinctly subsonic phenomena, such as aircraft impacts into buildings, building collapses, and even passing trucks on the street.

Do you even know what a shockwave is? I do. I once wrote a thesis about them.

Are you going to explain how a fireball originating almost 1000 ft. above the basement could have caused the "scope of damage seen?"

Another strawman. I never said there was one fireball, originating 1000 feet above the basement, that damaged the basement. The evidence very, very strongly suggests there were several fireballs. I have explained the factors leading to creation of these fireballs exhaustively.


Are you seriously saying that jet fuel dripping down from the top of the WTC and igniting could cause MORE damage than the 1993 bomb? I've never even heard anyone make that assertion, until you just did. I don't know anyone who would think that anything other than a bomb caused the damage seen in 1993, or greater than that amount of damage. I don't even understand how you could be saying this.

What I've said, mostly in the other thread, is that the fireball damaged a larger area than the WTC bomb. This is fact. The fireball, however, did less structural damage than the WTC bomb. This is the difference between a deflagration and a detonation. To create damage over the area seen in the WTC 1 and 2 basement with a detonation, you would have vastly more severe blast effects at the point of origin, and this simplly did not happen. You would have a much higher overpressure closer to the explosives, enough to kill people stone dead, and this too did not happen.

Now do you understand? You cannot think only in one dimension. Explosive effects involve volume, impact, blast, heat, overpressure strength and rise time -- numerous factors. Some of those in the WTC basements were more severe than in the 1993 bombing. Some were not.


And finally, every criteria you list WAS observed: 1) the sound 2) audio and video recordings 3) the seismic record. How can you say "none of this happened" when ALL of it happened? It's just a matter of how one interprets the data. I don't know how the seismic recording will differ with a bomb compared to a plane hitting a building, and I don't think you know either. What we do know is that they recorded data at those times. You can't say this data does not exist, otherwise you are flat out ignoring it.

No, none of it happened. A bomb explosion anywhere near the size of the 1993 bombing (or larger), going off several seconds after aircraft impact, would have been obvious to everyone. It would have thrown shrapnel and caused locally severe structural damage. It would have created a distinct, sharp spike on seismic records. You simply have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I strongly suggest you try to learn more about these subjects before you return. So far you're batting zero.


No it doesn't. It fits some of the evidence, but not all of the evidence, hence, the title and topic of this thread, and why I'm not letting this go until either i'm convinced, you're convinced, or we run out of points to make. I'll be back after I understand "backdraft", "flash points of fuel," properties of the elevators, and anything else. There is just no way you have incontrovertible evidence, or even the best theory that no explosives were used. I'm not wed to my theory and will give it up if someone presents a better theory. You have not even close to doing that. Re-read my posts.

I've presented you a better theory, but you show no signs of giving up your own. Nor have you provided any evidence whatsoever for your own theory. Everything you've presented is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

Besides, why would anyone set off explosives during the jet fuel explosions? How? What would be the point? This is total madness.

[Gravy]

Short of calling up Mike Pecoraro, is there any way to know for sure what kind of press was in that machine shop? Classic, classic truther investigative method into these extremely important "inside job bombings."

"There's something I really need to know. Please, JREF forum sages, tell me how I can find out without contacting the people who have the answer."

:dl:

You really give a damn, brasil, don't you? Your country's trying to kill you and you won't even make a phone call.

Classic.
Classic.
Classic.

[T.A.M.]

hey totovader and everbody, thewholesoul here

so maybe we could start off where we finished? morellini's testimony gives an account of two events (1) when he was walking he was thrown to the ground from the impact of the first event which he believed was in the loading dock. (2) when he was later running he experienced the second event which he assumed could have been the freight car when it collapsed.

now your initial explanation was that (1) was the plane impact + (2) was the evelvator.

you retracted this position when i pointed out the peculiarity of a plane impact 90+ floors above him causing him to be thrown to the ground. further more we know that people closer to the impact did not fall to the ground from the plane impact e.g. rodriguez and anthony which further decreased the plausibility of event (1) being the impact of a plane.

your next explanation was that (1) was the elevator and (2) was the "sound of the plane" impact.

but this explanation is clearly inconsistent with morellinis testimony since he seems to suggest that the second event (2), not the first, was the elevator crashing to the ground floor. besides would an elevator crashing to the basement floor cause a person to be thrown to the ground? perhaps? i would be sceptical.

but if event (1) was the elevator and event (2) was the "sound" of the plane impact travelling down the building. would the "sound" of the plane impact follow the elevator impact? the speed of sound is 340m/s, the plane impacted on the 93th floor which is roughly 355m above ground. so it would not take ANY longer than two seconds to reach the basement. the elevator fell because a fireball of jet fuel jetting down the elevator. so the fireball and the "sound of the plane impact" started the same time. but if the elevator fell at the speed of sound it and its occupants would surely have been crushed on impact. because the operator of the elevator survived we must reject this explanation. so the second event (2) could not have been the "sound" of the plane imapct.

so as a defender of the official story what is your explanation in relation to the testimony of morellini?

you have two posts here on this forum. Where is your original argument, as referenced to in the above post?

This argument/debate you are trying to continue here...did it initiate on another forum???

TAM:)

[thewholesoul]

"I suggest you read my paper "William Rodriguez, Escape Artist." It presents dozens of witness accounts, all of which are consistent with jet fuel igniting, and none of which are consistent with the use of high explosives."

I read your paper, i may have missed it but i could not find the entire transcript of the Felipe David interview 2002 on Colombian television. I did find it at prisonplanet.

He states in the interview “That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking AFTER I heard the explosion BELOW, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot...I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned”

let me be clear, i do not doubt that there was a fireball down the elevator as there is just too much testimony in support of this event. I agree with Arturo Griffith, for instance, when he said "The whole car shook and juddered as he heard an ominous noise from above.”

However i find Davids testimony at odds with your assertion that “The descriptions of explosions in the basement levels are entirely consistent with jet fuel traveling down the elevator shafts and entirely inconsistent with the effects of high explosives”.

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

[Totovader]

you have two posts here on this forum. Where is your original argument, as referenced to in the above post?

This argument/debate you are trying to continue here...did it initiate on another forum???

TAM:)

thewholesoul is referencing the debate that took place on his YouTube video, found here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=k8EQKbWTfMY).

Good luck trying to decipher who's responding to what- though. It became quite lengthy and got to the point where I couldn't even tell what was what- which is why I suggested he come here and try to make his point.

Unfortunately, he has me at a disadvantage- at first we were talking about Rodriguez, and then Saltalamacchia, and then Morelli, and then someone else. I can't find some of the posts I remember making in regards to Rodriguez and Saltalamacchia- but I blame that on YouTube.

Instead- I'll try to address what he said here, instead of continuing whatever debate was going on.

[Gravy]

Welcome, thewholesoul.

The obvious explanation is that these people in the basement didn't hear the plane impact, just as some people who were quite close to the impacts didn't. There's a chapter in my paper about that. I don't think you read very far in it.

Anthony Saltalamacchia, who was with Rodriguez:
"Being inside, we didn't know that there was anything wrong from the upper levels." Source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpaZE5XSfg)

[Pardalis]

thewholesoul is referencing the debate that took place on his YouTube video, found here (http://youtube.com/watch?v=k8EQKbWTfMY).

Good luck trying to decipher who's responding to what- though. It became quite lengthy and got to the point where I couldn't even tell what was what- which is why I suggested he come here and try to make his point.

I'm surprised anybody reads these things.

[Totovader]

hey totovader and everbody, thewholesoul here

so maybe we could start off where we finished? morellini's testimony gives an account of two events (1) when he was walking he was thrown to the ground from the impact of the first event which he believed was in the loading dock. (2) when he was later running he experienced the second event which he assumed could have been the freight car when it collapsed.

I was sure we moved past this. I quoted Morelli so that you could be sure:

From Gravy's page, here (http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower%3Awitnessaccounts%2Clobb)

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

now your initial explanation was that (1) was the plane impact + (2) was the evelvator.

Are you sure that we were talking about Morelli? If we were, then I was obviously in error. Morelli is making the description himself. I remember making that point when I quoted him.

you retracted this position when i pointed out the peculiarity of a plane impact 90+ floors above him causing him to be thrown to the ground. further more we know that people closer to the impact did not fall to the ground from the plane impact e.g. rodriguez and anthony which further decreased the plausibility of event (1) being the impact of a plane.

I am positive I never retracted my statement. Regardless, what makes you think this is peculiar? The impact of the plane is not necessarily going to have the same effect throughout the building. I'm not sure exactly where Morelli was, but if he was closer to any sort of support structure- then he would feel the impact more than someone who was not. Furthermore- as Gravy points out in his resources- there were people several floors below the impact that felt nothing- heard nothing.

your next explanation was that (1) was the elevator and (2) was the "sound of the plane" impact.

The sound of the plane would not have caused Morelli to be knocked to the ground- I never said that. I was talking about Rodriguez and the differences between hearing the impact. I specifically see the comments regarding your evasion of the Rodriguez story- especially in reference to him "knowing" the plane had not impacted yet.

but this explanation is clearly inconsistent with morellinis testimony since he seems to suggest that the second event (2), not the first, was the elevator crashing to the ground floor. besides would an elevator crashing to the basement floor cause a person to be thrown to the ground? perhaps? i would be sceptical.

I would defer to Morelli's testimony, then. Not that it describes the event itself- but it describes his memory of the event. I still fail to see what the problem is, however.

but if event (1) was the elevator and event (2) was the "sound" of the plane impact travelling down the building. would the "sound" of the plane impact follow the elevator impact? the speed of sound is 340m/s, the plane impacted on the 93th floor which is roughly 355m above ground. so it would not take ANY longer than two seconds to reach the basement. the elevator fell because a fireball of jet fuel jetting down the elevator. so the fireball and the "sound of the plane impact" started the same time. but if the elevator fell at the speed of sound it and its occupants would surely have been crushed on impact. because the operator of the elevator survived we must reject this explanation. so the second event (2) could not have been the "sound" of the plane imapct.

You're assuming the sound of the impact was traveling through a vacuum of air.

so as a defender of the official story what is your explanation in relation to the testimony of morellini?

Hold on- let me get my Talisman of Truth! Seriously? "Defender of the official story"?

My explanation is... you need to expand upon this idea that Morelli's recollection of the events is inconsistent with the "official story".

I recall pointing out that it makes no difference- Morelli's account could not be describing explosives. What was your rebuttal to that?

[thewholesoul]

point taken, once one considers that people closer to the impact did not hear the impact then rodriguez's claim must be dropped unless he has super sonic hearing.

so i hope totovader hears this, he pressed me on this one before.

if i am convinced by anothers argument i will change my position. that is a promise.

[Totovader]

point taken, once one considers that people closer to the impact did not hear the impact then rodriguez's claim must be dropped unless he has super sonic hearing.

so i hope totovader hears this, he pressed me on this one before.

if i am convinced by anothers argument i will change my position. that is a promise.

Who asked that Rodriguez's claim be "dropped"?

[Zlaya]

Welcome, thewholesoul.

The obvious explanation is that these people in the basement didn't hear the plane impact, just as some people who were quite close to the impacts didn't. There's a chapter in my paper about that. I don't think you read very far in it.

Anthony Saltalamacchia, who was with Rodriguez:
"Being inside, we didn't know that there was anything wrong from the upper levels." Source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpaZE5XSfg)


Or, you're wrong and bomb went off down there right before the impact?

[Totovader]

Or, you're wrong and bomb went off down there right before the impact?

Please- do what no conspiracist before you has been able to accomplish:

Explain why a "bomb" in the lower levels would have been necessary, possible, and relevant. The building did not collapse from the bottom up, and these supposed bombs certainly did not cause the building to collapse.

What sense does it make- or does it even bother you that it makes no sense? :toiletpap

[beachnut]

Or, you're wrong and bomb went off down there right before the impact?
No, you are wrong on this; A bomb going off before the planes would have made the news; but since your sources heard the bomb after the planes hit, your ideas are wrong for 6 years; Wrong before you even made up the stupid idea. Sorry, but being wrong on this simple stuff pretty much ruins your credibility; like crying wolf!. 9/11 truth is wrong and Rodriquez is selling his story. Why are you falling for the lies of 9/11 truth? How did the education system fail you?

[Gravy]

Or, you're wrong and bomb went off down there right before the impact?Only Rodriguez, who has a great deal of trouble with honesty, makes that claim, and AFAIK he only started making that claim in 2005.

Of course, he's also lied that he doesn't claim it was a bomb or explosives. He can't even tell the truth about his fantasies. I quoted him in an email to him (http://911stories.googlepages.com/emailsfrommetowilliamrodriguez) a couple of days ago:

"I'm not going to say that it was a bomb, because I am not an explosives expert."

And my reply:

Then you shouldn't claim that it wasn't what all of the evidence and witness testimony says it was: a jet fuel blast. Is there anything unclear about this concept?

[thewholesoul]

No matter how many times one reads morellini’s testimony one must conclude that two events occured. The first when he was walking and the second when he was running. I am simply looking for the most plausible explanation.

Now when i said your initial explanation for event (1) and (2) was the plane impact and the elvator crashing down you said “Are you sure that we were talking about Morelli?” yes i am sure.

“I am positive I never retracted my statement.” You said you mispoke. Or if you did make that statement it was an error. But lets not debate semantics.

“Regardless, what makes you think this is peculiar? The impact of the plane is not necessarily going to have the same effect throughout the building. I'm not sure exactly where Morelli was, but if he was closer to any sort of support structure- then he would feel the impact more than someone who was not. Furthermore- as Gravy points out in his resources- there were people several floors below the impact that felt nothing- heard nothing.”

After reading all the postings in this thread i have heard two explanations why he fell over.

No.1 R.Mackey says “And Morelli was first pushed over by compressed air pushed out of elevator shaft 6/7 or 50 (or both) due to falling elevator cars”
No.2 totovader argues that because he was close to the support structure “The impact of the plane” caused him to fall.

Of the two Mackey’s explanation seems more plausible. Because morellini states “when i got blown” which could be interpreted as compressed air rather than some form of after shock from the plane impact or something else.

The problem with totovaders explanation is that morellini claims to be beside the freight elevator, so was Felipe David, however David did not fall from the impact of the plane. So thats one reason i find it peculiar. I tend to beleive that whatever happened in the loading dock caused him to fall not what happened 90 floors above him.

The problem i have with mackey’s explanation is: could a falling elevator produce enough compressed air to push him to the floor? And account for something to fall (morellini) “over in the loading dock, something very heavy”. I am not sure but i’m assuming there were closed doors infront of the elevator shaft 6/7 and 50. these would have to be blown out if morellini was himself to be blown. If this had happened i would assume he would have mentioned it as the reason he fell to the ground given that he was walking beside the freight elevator.

“The sound of the plane would not have caused Morelli to be knocked to the ground- I never said that.”

Snap - i never said that either. “the sound of the plane” was presented as an explanation to the second event (2) that morellini experienced, an event that did not cause him to fall.

“I was talking about Rodriguez and the differences between hearing the impact”.

Really? Would a person well versed in gravy’s research and arguing that rodriguez could not have heard or known the plane impacting say this “The SECOND explosion would be the SOUND of the plane impact.” (emphasis ALL his). How could you be explaining the differences between hearing the impact of a plane when you were arguing that rodriguez didnt hear anything? When you posted this i wrote in response

“The SECOND explosion would be the SOUND of the plane impact." i thought YOU SAID that the second sound morellini described was quote "the collapsing elevators"??? admit it you CHANGED your story” . clearly we were talking about the first and second sounds that Morellini heard because you were arguing that rodriguez could not have heard a first and second sound, only the noise in the basement that was caused by the elevator or fireball.

Anyways lets move on – you obviously dont stand by your statement that the second event (2) morellini heard was the sound of the plane impact.

“You're assuming the sound of the impact was traveling through a vacuum of air”

Whether the sound was travelling through air, steel or concrete was irrelevant to the point i was making. The point i was making was that the speed of sound from the plane impacting the building would reach the basement sooner than the crashing elevator reached its final destination. But given that people below didnt even hear the plane impact i have no need to present this argumnet – it was merely a rebutal to totvaders suggestion that the second sound morellini heard was the sound of the plane impact.

“Hold on- let me get my Talisman of Truth!” funny.

“My explanation is... you need to expand upon this idea that Morelli's recollection of the events is inconsistent with the "official story".

Well what is that “official story” how many times do i have to ask as to what he heard in the laoding dock and made him to fall (event 1) and what did he hear when he was running by the bathroom (event 2)?

Was it – the plane impact? Was it the falling elevator? Was it compressed air? Was it a cosmic fart? I dont claim to have the answers but i do have questions and it would be nice if you could spell out exactly your explanation of these two events that he experienced and I will state my objections, if any.

“I recall pointing out that it makes no difference- Morelli's account could not be describing explosives. What was your rebuttal to that?”

What morellini described was the “impact of the explosion” “something very big” “something very heavy”. He was not on the floor where this event occured thus “Of course you didn't know what it was”. So he is describing something he could not be not describing something – was that something explosives? Or something else? I am awaiting to hear your something else...

[Gravy]

thewholesoul, why don't you contact Mr. Morelli to get a more detailed account? Will you? While you're at it, you can ask him if he thinks there were bombs placed in the basement that detonated before flight 11 hit.

And how about Arturo Griffith? William Rodriguez is afraid to interview him, although back in August, 2006 he said he would. How about you?

[thewholesoul]

hey beachnut i can see this is the start of a fruitfull dialogue, perhaps even a friendship?

so as for your ad hominem attack let us address my "stupid question".

what is the official explanation for morellini's account? you agree he experienced two main events the first caused him to fall to ground and he thought it came from the loading dock. the second occured when he was running. so you tell me what your version of the offical story is that explains these two events because i have heard several already. and i will try raise objections. if i cannot only then do you win the money.:)

[Totovader]

The problem with totovaders explanation is that morellini claims to be beside the freight elevator, so was Felipe David, however David did not fall from the impact of the plane. So thats one reason i find it peculiar. I tend to beleive that whatever happened in the loading dock caused him to fall not what happened 90 floors above him.

Read Morelli's testimony again- he was assuming something fell in the loading dock, because at the time it was the only thing that made sense to him. Without the knowledge of a plane impact, the only other thing that could cause that much damage would be "something falling in the loading dock". That's not what actually happened, it was just Morelli making an educated guess at the time.

The problem i have with mackey’s explanation is: could a falling elevator produce enough compressed air to push him to the floor? And account for something to fall (morellini) “over in the loading dock, something very heavy”. I am not sure but i’m assuming there were closed doors infront of the elevator shaft 6/7 and 50. these would have to be blown out if morellini was himself to be blown. If this had happened i would assume he would have mentioned it as the reason he fell to the ground given that he was walking beside the freight elevator.

Your problem/question is resolved when you read the quote again.


Really? Would a person well versed in gravy’s research and arguing that rodriguez could not have heard or known the plane impacting say this “The SECOND explosion would be the SOUND of the plane impact.” (emphasis ALL his). How could you be explaining the differences between hearing the impact of a plane when you were arguing that rodriguez didnt hear anything? When you posted this i wrote in response

Where did I argue that Rodriguez didn't hear anything?

i thought YOU SAID that the second sound morellini described was quote "the collapsing elevators"??? admit it you CHANGED your story” . clearly we were talking about the first and second sounds that Morellini heard because you were arguing that rodriguez could not have heard a first and second sound, only the noise in the basement that was caused by the elevator or fireball.

Where did I argue that Rodriguez could not have heard a first and second sound? I was arguing that Rodriguez could not know that the plane had not yet hit.

Well what is that “official story” how many times do i have to ask as to what he heard in the laoding dock and made him to fall (event 1) and what did he hear when he was running by the bathroom (event 2)?

Again, you need to read the quote again- there was no event in the loading dock.

Was it – the plane impact? Was it the falling elevator? Was it compressed air? Was it a cosmic fart? I dont claim to have the answers but i do have questions and it would be nice if you could spell out exactly your explanation of these two events that he experienced and I will state my objections, if any.

You have questions which are being used as a method of avoiding the facts. What I pointed out earlier to you- and what you continue to dodge- is that the sequence is largely irrelevant. Morelli is not describing explosives, and explosives would not make sense anyway.


“I recall pointing out that it makes no difference- Morelli's account could not be describing explosives. What was your rebuttal to that?”

What morellini described was the “impact of the explosion” “something very big” “something very heavy”. He was not on the floor where this event occured thus “Of course you didn't know what it was”. So he is describing something he could not be not describing something – was that something explosives? Or something else? I am awaiting to hear your something else...

That's not an answer to my question. I recall that you avoided it several times in our previous discussion. Are you going to continue to ignore it?

[Gravy]

thewholesoul, you're aware that several elevators fell in their shafts, right?

[thewholesoul]

well you have his phone number so why dont you do it and save me the price of an international call.

[Totovader]

Once again- here's Morelli's testimony, with the relevant part bolded:


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

Morelli is not describing an event in the loading dock- he's eluding to an assumption he made at the time due to the lack of information available from his position.

[LashL]

well you have his phone number so why dont you do it and save me the price of an international call.


If I undertake to call him and ask him about this to "save [you] the price of an international phone call", will you accept my report of the ensuing conversation as accurate?

If not, it would be far better for you to spend the five dollars and make the call yourself.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

well you have his phone number so why dont you do it and save me the price of an international call.


Heh. The "truth" isn't worth the price of an international phone call to you. Nice. :rolleyes:

[brasil]

Classic, classic truther investigative method into these extremely important "inside job bombings."

"There's something I really need to know. Please, JREF forum sages, tell me how I can find out without contacting the people who have the answer."

:dl:

You really give a damn, brasil, don't you? Your country's trying to kill you and you won't even make a phone call.

Classic.
Classic.
Classic.

Did I see a thread started somewhere along of the lines of "negative attitude towards gravy?" (reading it would have been an exercise in redundancy). I can see why now: You're really not a nice person. Do you get a free pass on here that allows you to make "personal attacks" without your snide posts getting moved to "post purgatory" as some of mine were?

I'll tell you why I'm hesitant to call up Mike Pecoraro: it's out of RESPECT. I bet he's gotten quite a large number of calls from all manner of nutcases on all 3 sides of the argument (the rational one, the insane one, and the insaner one). I really would have to think carefully before bothering the man. I heard that Louie "there were bombs going off everywhere" Cacchioli finally got sick of people contacting him and wanted nothing to do with it anymore. I'm not interested in your snide, "smartass" psychological analysis of why I might not want to call Mike Pecoraro. Why don't you call him and tape it if you're so shameless? After all, it's you who has put your face and name out there and made 9-11 "debunking" into a full-time job. You're practically a member of the press now. I think you should call him.

My country isn't trying to kill me. They just realize that collateral damage is part of any war, and so far I haven't been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, I wasn't far from the WTC when it all went down. I saw it with my own eyes. I think it was pretty kind of someone to start the attack before 9 a.m. when hardly anyone was there. Only 2,800 killed when it could have been what, 50,000? 60,000? They were still on their way to work. How convenient. The most complex terrorist act in the history of the world, executed by a shockingly low number of operatives, with logistics, engineering and demolition skills so advanced they knew they could bypass the most advanced air defenses on earth, and knock down 2-3 steel-framed buildings without explosives even though that type of collapse had never happened before and the buildings were designed to sustain jetliner hits. How could they leave out that all-important detail of killing as many Americans as possible?!?!?

Let's face it, if I was a Muslim fanatic waging Jihad, and wanted to "kill as many Americans as possible," which is what we are told they want to do by Bush, I would have flown those planes into those buildings at 11 a.m.. The buildings would have been at capacity. Everyone in full swing at their desks. How kind of these bloodthirsty Arab dogs to hit the buildings when hardly anyone had shown up, just in time to make it an all-day news event. Amazing, how nice they were. Almost as if they were more interested in leaving a permanent emotional scar on the American psyche, which people like Giuliani could invoke to get those emotions fired up during his campaign speeches. "Global war on terror, the war on terrorism, the terrorists, the war on terror...." - how many times did he repeat the phrase in that cleverly edited video from the RNC convention?

How is it that the Pentagon was hit in the one, or one of the areas that was under renovation and barely occupied? No high-value targets like Rumsfeld killed, although they were there, barely protected by our incompetent air force. Hardly any casualties compared to what it could have been. Awful nice of those terrorists not to case out the Pentagon and figure out which side of the building Rumsfeld walks into in the morning, because that's what I would've done.

This is my city that was attacked, where I always dreamed of living from a young age. In 2004, a Zogby poll showed that 49% of respondent in my city "Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act" Mark, I "give more of a damn" than you, I can promise you that.

(Don't I just shine when I come home tipsy from partying all night and hit the JREF forums? I've got so many spare neurons to burn and it feels fantastic.)

[brasil]

P.S. - If I was a bloodthirsty Arab terrorist who really wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, I would've crashed the second plane into the Indian Point nuclear power station and pulled a "Chernobyl" on the 5 boroughs. Ten thousand years before we could come back here, and maybe hundreds of thousands dead of radiation exposure. WTC 1 would've still taken out WTC 7, so that's still two buildings right there. Those Arabs showed amazing mercy and restraint on us. A lot more mercy than the U.S. showed in Iraq. Maybe they don't really hate us that much, but just want to teach us a lesson because they think we might still come round to accepting Allah into our hearts. But what does any of this have to do with evidence, facts, equations....

[tomwaits]

Awful nice of those terrorists not to case out the Pentagon and figure out which side of the building Rumsfeld walks into in the morning, because that's what I would've done.


Dude, wtf? Are you serious? This is rediculous. Think about what you are saying.

[stateofgrace]

Try to learn something about this event before you post. It was NOT just Americans that were killed in this dreadful terrorist attack. Citizens from over 70 countries perished in this cold blooded mass murder.

They did not attack the US air defence system; they attacked civilians on civilian aircraft, and slammed them into land mark buildings.

Maybe you should pop off to bed and sober up before posting any further.

[stateofgrace]

P.S. - If I was a bloodthirsty Arab terrorist who really wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, I would've crashed the second plane into the Indian Point nuclear power station and pulled a "Chernobyl" on the 5 boroughs. Ten thousand years before we could come back here, and maybe hundreds of thousands dead of radiation exposure. WTC 1 would've still taken out WTC 7, so that's still two buildings right there. Those Arabs showed amazing mercy and restraint on us. A lot more mercy than the U.S. showed in Iraq. Maybe they don't really hate us that much, but just want to teach us a lesson because they think we might still come round to accepting Allah into our hearts. But what does any of this have to do with evidence, facts, equations....

Do you mean facts like this?


Two dozen suspected members of a Spanish al-Qaeda cell who are accused of aiding preparations for the 9/11 attacks appeared in court today in Europe's biggest anti-terror trial.
The 24 men are mostly Syrians and Moroccans who have lived in Spain for many years. They include Imad Yarkas, 42, a Syrian-born Spaniard who is alleged to have supervised a cell that provided logistical support for the September 11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta. Two other suspects also are accused specifically of helping plan the attack.



A Moroccan man convicted in Germany as an accessory to the attacks on the United States in September 2001 has been sentenced to 15 years in jail.
The court in Hamburg handed the maximum sentence against Mounir al-Motassadek




A Syrian man accused of heading a Spanish al-Qaeda cell and helping to organise the 9/11 attacks has been jailed for 27 years in Madrid.
Imad Yarkas was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the 2001 terror attacks

:

MADRID, Spain (AP) - Spain's leading investigating judge issued the first known indictment against Osama bin Laden in the Sept. 11 attacks yesterday, accusing al-Qaida of using the country as a base to plot the devastating strikes on New York and Washington.
Investigative magistrate Baltasar Garzon indicted 35 people for terrorist activities connected to bin Laden's al-Qaida network. In a nearly 700-page document, Garzon wrote that Spain served "as a place or base for resting, preparation, indoctrinating, support and financing" of al-Qaida.
The indictment charged bin Laden and nine others with membership in a terrorist organization and "as many crimes of terrorist murder ... as there were dead and injured" in the deadly Sept. 11 attacks.

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/m...-1418654.shtml (http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2003/09/18/News/Spain.Indicts.Bin.Laden.For.Attacks-1418654.shtml)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6242867.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6242867.stm)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4281808.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4281808.stm)

[brasil]

Why don't both of you just keep missing the point. You bet I would've cased out the Pentagon as just one way of determining where the big guys' offices are. It's not ridiculous, it's called reconnaissance. I know it wasn't only Americans killed. I know what happened that day - that they bypassed the air defence system. Don't put words in my mouth.

I threw in the part about being "tipsy" just to see who would be the first to ignore the whole premise of my post and just focus on that. Congratulations, stateofgrace! Do I sound tipsy right now?

[stateofgrace]

Why don't both of you just keep missing the point. You bet I would've cased out the Pentagon as just one way of determining where the big guys' offices are. It's not ridiculous, it's called reconnaissance. I know it wasn't only Americans killed. I know what happened that day - that they bypassed the air defence system. Don't put words in my mouth.

I threw in the part about being "tipsy" just to see who would be the first to ignore the whole premise of my post and just focus on that. Congratulations, stateofgrace! Do I sound tipsy right now?

And what premise is that? The one where you drop all pretence at being serious and simply spew ct rubbish onto the forum?

No Brazil I did not miss your premise at all and personally I could care less what you would have done, I care what you can prove, and to date you have proved nothing. To date you have presented a premise that “bloodthirsty Arabs" could not possibly have carried out this attack because in your opinion the causalities were not high enough. This you have lamely tried to back by the fact that the attacks took place in the morning and one of the planes hit an area of the Pentagon that was being renovated. you have then gone on to speculate that the same people who were so concerned about keeping the deaths to a minimum in the Sept 11th attacks launched an all out war to kill lots of other people. You have further gone on to call the US air force incompetent, called the terrorists merciful and said there was hardly any causalities at all.

Did I miss something from your premise or was there any further rubbish you would like to add?

[Redtail]

P.S. - If I was a bloodthirsty Arab terrorist who really wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, I would've crashed the second plane into the Indian Point nuclear power station and pulled a "Chernobyl" on the 5 boroughs. Ten thousand years before we could come back here, and maybe hundreds of thousands dead of radiation exposure. WTC 1 would've still taken out WTC 7, so that's still two buildings right there. Those Arabs showed amazing mercy and restraint on us. A lot more mercy than the U.S. showed in Iraq. Maybe they don't really hate us that much, but just want to teach us a lesson because they think we might still come round to accepting Allah into our hearts. But what does any of this have to do with evidence, facts, equations....

You really don't understand terrorism do you? It's not about how many/much you kill/destroy, it's about who/what you kill/destroy.

[chillzero]

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

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

[thewholesoul]

hey totovader

before responding in full i would really appreciate a quick confirmation - am i correct to infer from this statment

"he was assuming something fell in the loading dock, because at the time it was the only thing that made sense to him. Without the knowledge of a plane impact, the only other thing that could cause that much damage would be "something falling in the loading dock". That's not what actually happened, it was just Morelli making an educated guess at the time."

that the first event morellini heard and felt was the airoplane impact? a yes or no would be fantastic.

[Totovader]

hey totovader

before responding in full i would really appreciate a quick confirmation - am i correct to infer from this statment

"he was assuming something fell in the loading dock, because at the time it was the only thing that made sense to him. Without the knowledge of a plane impact, the only other thing that could cause that much damage would be "something falling in the loading dock". That's not what actually happened, it was just Morelli making an educated guess at the time."

that the first event morellini heard and felt was the airoplane impact? a yes or no would be fantastic.

See my previous comments- it's irrelevant as to which event he's describing (assuming his recall is perfect, by the way). You continue to dodge this point and instead want to drill down into the specifics of witness' ability to recall- something that is imperfect. I will withhold my answer until you address this.

[thewholesoul]

although i would prefer to stick to the known testimony i would not object if you wanted to ring the man. obviously there is no way i can guarantee the actual content of the conversation so i trust you are a man of your word and would report the truth even if that happens to contradict your own position.

perhaps instead of asking him to restate the entire event that happened that morning it would be better just to ask him if he still stands by his known statements made in the news interview?

but yea go ahead, the truth may not be worth 5 bucks of my money but it is certainly worth 5 bucks of someone-elses. why dont you ring felipe David...his testimony is far more damning of the official stroy?

[Lurker]

One thing most people in these forums do not accept, is that it's not always either/or. If I think explosives might have been in the basement, I am not automatically saying burning jet fuel didn't make it down there as well. Has anyone considered that it could be BOTH.

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

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

Am I wrong on something here?

[Totovader]

although i would prefer to stick to the known testimony i would not object if you wanted to ring the man. obviously there is no way i can guarantee the actual content of the conversation so i trust you are a man of your word and would report the truth even if that happens to contradict your own position.

perhaps instead of asking him to restate the entire event that happened that morning it would be better just to ask him if he still stands by his known statements made in the news interview?

but yea go ahead, the truth may not be worth 5 bucks of my money but it is certainly worth 5 bucks of someone-elses. why dont you ring felipe David...his testimony is far more damning of the official stroy?

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

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

[Lurker]

Are you going to explain how a fireball originating almost 1000 ft. above the basement could have caused the "scope of damage seen?"
Why do you continue asserting that the fireball originated 1000' above the basement when we are not promulgating that scenario? We have already proposed that jet fuel went down the shaft and ignited below. The fireball did not travel all the way down the shaft.


I'm off to go party NYC-style.

My condolences.

Lurker

[GStan]

P.S. - If I was a bloodthirsty Arab terrorist who really wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, I would've crashed the second plane into the Indian Point nuclear power station and pulled a "Chernobyl" on the 5 boroughs. Ten thousand years before we could come back here, and maybe hundreds of thousands dead of radiation exposure. WTC 1 would've still taken out WTC 7, so that's still two buildings right there. Those Arabs showed amazing mercy and restraint on us. A lot more mercy than the U.S. showed in Iraq. Maybe they don't really hate us that much, but just want to teach us a lesson because they think we might still come round to accepting Allah into our hearts. But what does any of this have to do with evidence, facts, equations....

My bolding. America should have been so lucky as to have been the victim of such a stupid "bloodthirsty Arab terrorist" who would crash an airplane into Indian Point. This has been covered in at least one other thread here. Because of the design and construction (possibly as a protection from such stupidity), the chance that an airliner crash, even a deliberate one, could result in the damage and aftermath you have described is roughly 0.00%.

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe they don't really hate us that much, but just want to teach us a lesson because they think we might still come round to accepting Allah into our hearts.

That is, perhaps, the most insightful comment I've seen on 9-11 from someone who appears to me to be more inclined towards the conspiracist world view - I hope it wasn't as sarcastic as it looks. Start thinking about the 9-11 attacks, not in the sense of wanting to kill Americans out of blind unreasoning hatred, but in the sense of wanting to extend the power and influence of Islam, and maybe you'll start to understand them better. These attacks weren't against people, they were against symbols. Terrorists want to get our attention, and 3,000 deaths will do that just as well as 30,000.

Dave

[GStan]

My bolding. America should have been so lucky as to have been the victim of such a stupid "bloodthirsty Arab terrorist" who would crash an airplane into Indian Point. This has been covered in at least one other thread here. Because of the design and construction (possibly as a protection from such stupidity), the chance that an airliner crash, even a deliberate one, could result in the damage and aftermath you have described is roughly 0.00%.

This is a relatively short thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101068

You may want to read it before finalizing your plans for Jihad.

[Norseman]

After reading all the postings in this thread i have heard two explanations why he fell over.

No.1 R.Mackey says “And Morelli was first pushed over by compressed air pushed out of elevator shaft 6/7 or 50 (or both) due to falling elevator cars”

A slight correction thewholesoul, it was me and not R.Mackey who proposed that Morellini was pushed over by pressured air from the elevator shafts:
And Morelli was first pushed over by compressed air pushed out of elevator shaft 6/7 or 50 (or both) due to falling elevator cars. Then he experienced the over pressure from the jet fuel deflagration while he was in the bathroom.

No offense taken, since R.Mackey is one of the top technical contributors on this forum, and I am far below his level.:cool:


I tend to beleive that whatever happened in the loading dock caused him to fall not what happened 90 floors above him.

There is no reason think that anything happened in the loading dock. The loading dock was on B-1. And Rodriguez and company evacuated through the loading dock not mentioning anything special. Neither have Rodgriguez, who was on B-1, in his different stories claimed that sounds came from the loading dock as far as I know. On the contrary in his later stories he claims that the load boom came from below.


The problem i have with mackey’s explanation is: could a falling elevator produce enough compressed air to push him to the floor? And account for something to fall (morellini) “over in the loading dock, something very heavy”. I am not sure but i’m assuming there were closed doors infront of the elevator shaft 6/7 and 50. these would have to be blown out if morellini was himself to be blown. If this had happened i would assume he would have mentioned it as the reason he fell to the ground given that he was walking beside the freight elevator.

Yes, falling elevators can blow out doors. As you will see in this quote from the 1945 airplane crash in Empire State Building (http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9603-002.htm):
The plane penetrated the #6 and #7 car hatch walls, cutting the cable on the #6 car that was on its way down. Our selector in the motor room indicated the cables were cut when the car was at about the 38th floor.

All the governor and safety cables were sheared, so the car went into free fall. Fortunately for the female operator, the safety cable was severed; if not, the governor in the motor room would have applied the safety device under the cable. The car would then have stopped at the 34th and 35th floor in a blind hatch (blind hatch means no doors from the 40th to the main floor express cars) -- with marble and brick walls to break through to find where the car was located. When anything like that would happen, a mechanic can take the people off to the car next to his. Doors exist between the cars for that purpose, but the #7 car was hanging in the cables and burning on the 80th floor. The #6 car was afire -- it, too, stuck up there. The girl operator might have died from smoke suffocation.

A few seconds later, the car was in the basement. Fortunately, a basement door was in the #6 car shaft. The car doors were completely ripped out. No doubt, the air pressure -- caused by the car coming down -- blasted open the door in the pit. The operator stood in the corner, where the car switch was located. The rest of the car was filled with steel, bricks and plane parts. It surprised me that she was not more badly hurt.
Again, this was a story from the 1945 airplane crash in the Empire State Building. The crash could even have been worse in the WTC case.

[beachnut]

P.S. - If I was a bloodthirsty Arab terrorist who really wanted to kill as many Americans as possible, I would've crashed the second plane into the Indian Point nuclear power station and pulled a "Chernobyl" on the 5 boroughs. Ten thousand years before we could come back here, and maybe hundreds of thousands dead of radiation exposure. WTC 1 would've still taken out WTC 7, so that's still two buildings right there. Those Arabs showed amazing mercy and restraint on us. A lot more mercy than the U.S. showed in Iraq. Maybe they don't really hate us that much, but just want to teach us a lesson because they think we might still come round to accepting Allah into our hearts. But what does any of this have to do with evidence, facts, equations....
Our Nukes do not operate like the Soviet Nukes, too bad you would just make a splat!!! Like the Pentagon was stronger than the WTC, the Nuke is stronger than the Pentagon. Splat! Oops, a plane was smashed by the concrete at the Nuke, the dumb terrorist "brasil" was the pilot. Not a smart move, not a smart post. Oops. you should have studied our nukes which make electricity, to see why we are not the China Syndrome you feel for by watching too many fiction movies. You would have been the weak link terrorist, as you are the weak link in the 9/11 truth movement, like the rest of the members! no facts, no idea what happen on 9/11, good job; next time study for a few years.

[GStan]

<snip>
My country isn't trying to kill me. They just realize that collateral damage is part of any war, and so far I haven't been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hell, I wasn't far from the WTC when it all went down. I saw it with my own eyes. I think it was pretty kind of someone to start the attack before 9 a.m. when hardly anyone was there. Only 2,800 killed when it could have been what, 50,000? 60,000? They were still on their way to work. How convenient. The most complex terrorist act in the history of the world, executed by a shockingly low number of operatives, with logistics, engineering and demolition skills so advanced they knew they could bypass the most advanced air defenses on earth, and knock down 2-3 steel-framed buildings without explosives even though that type of collapse had never happened before and the buildings were designed to sustain jetliner hits. How could they leave out that all-important detail of killing as many Americans as possible?!?!?

<snip>

My bolding. I find it rather disturbing to know that there are people in the world with such warped worldviews and morality that they could somehow rationalize characterizing the killing of 2880 people as 'kind'.

By the way, an estimated 16,000 additional workers were in the towers when the first plane hit and managed to escape the towers, as another obvious act of kindness.

[beachnut]

hey beachnut i can see this is the start of a fruitfull dialogue, perhaps even a friendship?

so as for your ad hominem attack let us address my "stupid question".

what is the official explanation for morellini's account? you agree he experienced two main events the first caused him to fall to ground and he thought it came from the loading dock. the second occured when he was running. so you tell me what your version of the offical story is that explains these two events because i have heard several already. and i will try raise objections. if i cannot only then do you win the money.:)
What does it mean to you? If you think explosives were used in the basement, you have to come up with proof. There is none. Not one thing that shows explosives in the basement on 9/11. Since you have no new evidence, just hearsay with no real time line. But more over, you have no evidence of explosives. Zip. No facts, no evidence, no explosives.

As you gather more information, ( did you do any research in the first place; do you know what research is?) your ideas on 9/11 will fail to produce evidence of explosives in the basement. So what is it about 9/11 that you have? Got some facts? No, you have zero facts and evidence to support explosives. You have failed, and I think I was correct again. No make up some reason why you have to go away and can not find the facts to save your pathetic position of ignorance on 9/11.

[Lurker]

My bolding. I find it rather disturbing to know that there are people in the world with such warped worldviews and morality that they could somehow rationalize characterizing the killing of 2880 people as 'kind'.

By the way, an estimated 16,000 additional workers were in the towers when the first plane hit and managed to escape the towers, as another obvious act of kindness.

I wonder if the hijackers were limited by trying to find five flights all leaving at or near the same time from Logan all fully fueled for a cross country flight. My guess is trying to find the five planes that meet that criteria may have excluded most times of day.

Then again, perhaps there was another reason the hijackers chose the morning. Better able to blend in? More chaos at the airport? Those are a couple possibilities that I thought of and I am not casing and planning it all. We can't know what the rationale for every detail of hte plan was.

[Alferd_Packer]

Why don't both of you just keep missing the point. You bet I would've cased out the Pentagon as just one way of determining where the big guys' offices are. It's not ridiculous, it's called reconnaissance.

Yeah, right.

On the one hand, CTers claim that the pentagon was the most secure and protected building in the world, and then on the other hand, Brasil thinks he could have just walked up to the building and by asking the guards at the front desk, he would have been able to locate the SecDef office.

[thewholesoul]

See my previous comments- it's irrelevant as to which event he's describing (assuming his recall is perfect, by the way). You continue to dodge this point and instead want to drill down into the specifics of witness' ability to recall- something that is imperfect. I will withhold my answer until you address this.


In the spirit of dialogue i will try to reply as best i can to your questions. In hope that you can reply in kind.

Given the fact that we are attempting to establish whether the testimony of morellini and others is or is not consistent with the official explanation, his testimony is not just relevant but essential to the objective of our dialogue. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

It is relevant to determine the sequence of events morellini describes because the official explanation also describes a certain kind and sequence of events and as already stated the objective of our dialogue is to establish whether morellini’s testimony is or is not consistent with the offical explanation. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

So returning to my question: are you saying that the first event morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? It is a simple yes or no.

I provided my reasons why i believe the sequence of events is relevant.

[Totovader]

In the spirit of dialogue i will try to reply as best i can to your questions. In hope that you can reply in kind.

Given the fact that we are attempting to establish whether the testimony of morellini and others is or is not consistent with the official explanation, his testimony is not just relevant but essential to the objective of our dialogue. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

It is relevant to determine the sequence of events morellini describes because the official explanation also describes a certain kind and sequence of events and as already stated the objective of our dialogue is to establish whether morellini’s testimony is or is not consistent with the offical explanation. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

So returning to my question: are you saying that the first event morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? It is a simple yes or no.

I provided my reasons why i believe the sequence of events is relevant.

Strawman- I never made any comments or had any questions as to whether Morelli's testimony is "relevant" or not. My question was to whether the sequence of events (or his recollection of them) is relevant.

Seriously- I'm getting kind of tired of you dodging this question. The sequence of events as Morelli remembers them should be pretty clear- but I am gosh darned curious as to why you think it matters. You don't seem to understand the futility of your claims- or maybe you do, and that's why you can't answer...

If Morelli's testimony was inconsistent with the official story- are you suggesting that everything he says gets thrown out automatically? Is that what you're trying to imply?

[thewholesoul]

See my previous comments- it's irrelevant as to which event he's describing (assuming his recall is perfect, by the way). You continue to dodge this point and instead want to drill down into the specifics of witness' ability to recall- something that is imperfect. I will withhold my answer until you address this.

In the spirit of dialogue i will try to reply as best i can to your questions. In hope that you can reply in kind.

Given the fact that we are attempting to establish whether the testimony of morellini and others is or is not consistent with the official explanation, his testimony is not just relevant but essential to the objective of our dialogue. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

It is relevant to determine the sequence of events morellini describes because the official explanation also describes a certain kind and sequence of events and as already stated the objective of our dialogue is to establish whether morellini’s testimony is or is not consistent with the offical explanation. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

one reason you said morellini's account is irrelevant is because he said "Of course you didn't know what it was, you're assuming something just fell over in the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big".

but because he didnt know what it was - does not mean - that what he experienced was the impact of a plane and not something else. if you disagree please provide your reasons.

if the impact of a plane is your explanation of what he first experienced while walking near the freight car in b4 then please confirm that with a yes or a no. :)

[Totovader]

In the spirit of dialogue i will try to reply as best i can to your questions. In hope that you can reply in kind.

Given the fact that we are attempting to establish whether the testimony of morellini and others is or is not consistent with the official explanation, his testimony is not just relevant but essential to the objective of our dialogue. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

It is relevant to determine the sequence of events morellini describes because the official explanation also describes a certain kind and sequence of events and as already stated the objective of our dialogue is to establish whether morellini’s testimony is or is not consistent with the offical explanation. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

one reason you said morellini's account is irrelevant is because he said "Of course you didn't know what it was, you're assuming something just fell over in the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big".

but because he didnt know what it was - does not mean - that what he experienced was the impact of a plane and not something else. if you disagree please provide your reasons.

if the impact of a plane is your explanation of what he first experienced while walking near the freight car in b4 then please confirm that with a yes or a no. :)

Strawman- I never made any comments or had any questions as to whether Morelli's testimony is "relevant" or not. My question was to whether the sequence of events (or his recollection of them) is relevant.

I'm going to have to continue to repeat myself until you answer the question and cease with the strawman arguments. It's pointless to debate myself.

[thewholesoul]

Strawman- I never made any comments or had any questions as to whether Morelli's testimony is "relevant" or not. My question was to whether the sequence of events (or his recollection of them) is relevant.

Seriously- I'm getting kind of tired of you dodging this question. The sequence of events as Morelli remembers them should be pretty clear- but I am gosh darned curious as to why you think it matters. You don't seem to understand the futility of your claims- or maybe you do, and that's why you can't answer...

If Morelli's testimony was inconsistent with the official story- are you suggesting that everything he says gets thrown out automatically? Is that what you're trying to imply?

yes his recollection of the sequence of events is relevant BECAUSE the offical explanation also descibes a sequence of events and the OBJECTIVE of our dialogue is to establish whether or not the sequence of events he describes is or is not consistent with the official sequence of events and vice versa. that is my reason. now your job is to say either this reason i provided is valid or invalid - thats how rational dialogues are supposed to work.

instead of providing reasons why you consider the sequence of events in morellini's testimony irelevant you claim that i cannot answer the question. i answered your question with a reason - "the sequence of events is relevant BECAUSE the offical explanation also descibes a sequence of events and the OBJECTIVE of our dialogue is to establish whether or not the sequence of events he describes is or is not consistent with the official sequence of events and vice versa." is that reason invalid or not?

why on earth would i argue that everything he says that is inconsistent with the official story should be thrown out??? first we have to establsh whether or not it is inconsistent and to do that i need you to confirm what your version of the offical story is. what is your explanation for what he experienced. second if my GOAL is establish an inconsistency between morellini's testimony and the the offical explanation pertaining to the sequence of events within that testimony then it makes no sense what so ever that i would want his testimony to be thrown out.

so again to avoid repitition - can you confirm that your explanation of the first event that morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? a simple yes or no would suffice. :)

[brasil]

Yeah, right.

On the one hand, CTers claim that the pentagon was the most secure and protected building in the world, and then on the other hand, Brasil thinks he could have just walked up to the building and by asking the guards at the front desk, he would have been able to locate the SecDef office.

A) I'm not a "truther" or a "CTer" and I've never met one of those people. I don't even know what they are. You seem to know a lot about those people though. Are you one of them? Perhaps a "CTer" who believes the government's "CT theory?"

B) Don't put words in my mouth: I don't claim anything you're saying. Especially your idiotic assertion that "i think i could just walk up to the guards." Try responding to things I'm actually saying. What I know is how to get into the head of one of these "terrorists" and try to start thinking logistically about how I would approach the problem of attacking the Pentagon. I think the FBI has a job for me somewhere.

We've all heard reports of Arab terrorists "casing out government buildings" so it would be an option to sit in a car with tinted windows and high-powered binoculars and observe the building. If that didn't yield any valuable intel about which part of the building to target, then perhaps I could start calling the Pentagon and socially engineer my way into getting an idea of where the SecDef or Joint Chiefs (or is that the same thing?) offices are. While all this was going on, I could search the internet for open source information. I vaguely remember a story back in 2001 or 2002 about the USG removing thousands (or more) of pages off .gov servers which contained information meant for the public, but that they decided could help terrorists.

Stop trying to make me out as "dumb" by putting words into my mouth. You're not showing much intelligence by doing so.

[beachnut]

so again to avoid repitition - can you confirm that your explanation of the first event that morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? a simple yes or no would suffice. :)
Present your proof of explosives. OH, you have none. You have zero facts and evidence to support explosives in the basement, this make your attempt to make up lies pathetic considering the results of 19 terrorist on 9/11 who were better at cutting throats than you are at finding facts to support lies of 9/11 truth. Pathetic; and you offered no explanation for being disrespectful trying to make up lies about 9/11. Have a great conversation on fantasy BS about 9/11.

[thewholesoul]

yes it is relevant - for example - rodriguez changed the sequence of events. first he said that he heard an explosion in the basement at the same moment he heard a plane impact above. later he said that he heard the explosion in the basement first. you see why the sequence of events is relevant?

i will keep providing reasons to your question eventhough you do not have the courtesy to respond to mine, eventhough you provide no reasons to invalidate the reasons i provide when answering your question.

[westprog]

my father (the structural engineer)

Good God. That will be some Christmas.

[brasil]

I wonder if the hijackers were limited by trying to find five flights all leaving at or near the same time from Logan all fully fueled for a cross country flight. My guess is trying to find the five planes that meet that criteria may have excluded most times of day. We can't know what the rationale for every detail of hte plan was.

With all of the spectacular feats they accomplished that day, which had never been anticipated in the history of the world (oh, wait, that's just what Bush on Condi told us... that might not be true come to think of it), somehow I don't think finding a flight that left an hour or two later was going to be a big issue when the payoff of that decision was killing an additional 50,000 American residents*. In my experience flying cross country, there are always at least 3 flights per day on any given airline.

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

[brasil]

Good God. That will be some Christmas.

Legos. Erector Set. Chemistry Set. Subscription to ENR (Engineering News Record). I can't wait for xmas! Did I mention that i'm only 12 years old with an I.Q. of 170?

[Totovader]

yes his recollection of the sequence of events is relevant BECAUSE the offical explanation also descibes a sequence of events and the OBJECTIVE of our dialogue is to establish whether or not the sequence of events he describes is or is not consistent with the official sequence of events and vice versa. that is my reason. now your job is to say either this reason i provided is valid or invalid - thats how rational dialogues are supposed to work.

This argument is circular- however. You're saying it's relevant because it's relevant. I am pointing out that whether he heard the airplane hit first or heard the elevators coming down first does not change the fact that the airplane hit, nor does it (in either sequence) logically result in "bombs". This is the fact that you continue to ignore.

instead of providing reasons why you consider the sequence of events in morellini's testimony irelevant you claim that i cannot answer the question. i answered your question with a reason - "the sequence of events is relevant BECAUSE the offical explanation also descibes a sequence of events and the OBJECTIVE of our dialogue is to establish whether or not the sequence of events he describes is or is not consistent with the official sequence of events and vice versa." is that reason invalid or not?

I have continually commented (even prior to this thread) that the sequence of events is irrelevant because 1) Morelli's recollection could be in error (although I am not suggesting that it is, I am merely pointing out that it's a possibility in eyewitness accounts) and 2) that in either sequence of events, there is no "bomb". This is a fact you continue to ignore.

why on earth would i argue that everything he says that is inconsistent with the official story should be thrown out???

This seems to be the crux of your argument. If Morelli describes it one way- it's inconsistent with the "official story" and therefore "irrelevant". This is your strawman against my argument, by the way- not my argument.

first we have to establsh whether or not it is inconsistent and to do that i need you to confirm what your version of the offical story is.

There are no "versions" of the official story. Nor would it be relevant as to what "my version" would be. I go where the evidence takes me. Thus, if Morelli was describing bombs (as Rodriguez attempts to) we would be discussing the evidence supporting that claim. Since he does not, you are instead trying to throw out all of his testimony because you consider it to be inconsistent with the "official story". What you are dancing around (besides the facts) is the obvious stolen concept fallacy in play- here. In order to deny what Morelli says in toto (no pun intended), you would have to already have a conclusion based on that evidence.

what is your explanation for what he experienced. second if my GOAL is establish an inconsistency between morellini's testimony and the the offical explanation pertaining to the sequence of events within that testimony then it makes no sense what so ever that i would want his testimony to be thrown out.

If that was indeed your goal. The end result- however- is obviously your efforts to throw his entire testimony out. Remember: this discussion originally began as a documentation of witnesses that corroborate Rodriguez's claims. So far, there have been none.

so again to avoid repitition - can you confirm that your explanation of the first event that morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? a simple yes or no would suffice. :)

I will be forced to repeat myself, here (especially considering I've already answered the question in the comment you're replying to). It's your argument- you need to explain why it's relevant. Simply claiming that all accounts have to be absolutely consistent with the "official story" is an absurd argument, being that it would rely on witnesses possessing perfect memory, or omniscience- something that no humans possess.

[Totovader]

yes it is relevant - for example - rodriguez changed the sequence of events. first he said that he heard an explosion in the basement at the same moment he heard a plane impact above. later he said that he heard the explosion in the basement first. you see why the sequence of events is relevant?

i will keep providing reasons to your question eventhough you do not have the courtesy to respond to mine, eventhough you provide no reasons to invalidate the reasons i provide when answering your question.

Context dropping. Morelli is not describing bombs, Rodriguez is. Furthermore, we can see from Rodriguez's claims, that they make no sense. Therefore, those specific claims, can be taken with a metric ton of salt.

[DGM]

With all of the spectacular feats they accomplished that day, which had never been anticipated in the history of the world (oh, wait, that's just what Bush on Condi told us... that might not be true come to think of it), somehow I don't think finding a flight that left an hour or two later was going to be a big issue when the payoff of that decision was killing an additional 50,000 American residents*. In my experience flying cross country, there are always at least 3 flights per day on any given airline.

*(The word "residents" chosen carefully, since someone thought it was "bright" to accuse me of ignoring all of the foreigners who died in the attacks. If you're working in this country, you're a "resident" or you're illegal.)
Would you mind pointing out these " spectacular feats" in another thread? The plan they used was not that tough to complete.

[thewholesoul]

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

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

have a nive day beachnut.

[Totovader]

hey totovader

before responding in full i would really appreciate a quick confirmation - am i correct to infer from this statment

"he was assuming something fell in the loading dock, because at the time it was the only thing that made sense to him. Without the knowledge of a plane impact, the only other thing that could cause that much damage would be "something falling in the loading dock". That's not what actually happened, it was just Morelli making an educated guess at the time."

that the first event morellini heard and felt was the airoplane impact? a yes or no would be fantastic.

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

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

[Totovader]

- there is no evidence of explosives because if there were explosives the hard evidence exploded.

This is only the 2nd time in my life I have ever heard this absurd claim. To believe that explosives just disappear and leave no trace is fundamentally retarded. To then claim that this lack of evidence is actually evidence, is a whole new level of stupid.

- The NIST made a conscience decision not to test for explosive residue at the WTC complex. This would have proven one way or another whether an explosive device was used in the sub levels of the North Tower, however, no test by any Federal Agency was conducted

Assuming this were true (it's not) that decision would have been made on research prior to the NIST investigation- including the accounts of the field researchers who investigated over 40,000 tons of the steel and found no evidence of explosives where there should have been.

Furthermore, this claim completely contradicts your first one. If there's no evidence of explosives ever, then no test would suffice. Magic explosives, I guess.

- The historical record of terrorism against America is another valid reason to explore the ED hypothesis. I'm sure you are all aware of the 1993 WTC attack using a truck bomb in the subbasement at the WTC. If terrorists could use this tactic of placing an explosive device in their target once, isn’t it reasonable to suggest they might try that tactic again, especially when combined with the use of planes? The reasonable person would think so .

It would only be reasonable if you assume the following:

1) That we never learn from attacks and beef up security. (Pretty stupid assumption)
2) That their goal was accomplished (it was not).
3) That it was less expensive or less risky than their alternative plan (it was not).

So... no, it's not reasonable.

- 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"

Do you have any evidence of this? When conspiracists have made this claim before, there was no evidence to support it besides one reporter making this claim without any justification (a reporter who is known for embellishing the stories he's reporting on IIRC).

- testimony is a form of evidence and many people reported hearing explosions. if you agree that testimony is a form of evidence - circumstantial evidence - then your assertion that i have zero facts or evidence supporting the case for explosives in the basement makes no sense what so ever.

Explosions are not evidence of explosives. Explosions are not unusual in an office fire (or an event as spectacular as this). Furthermore, testimony is not evidence- it's testimony. We've been over this.

If testimony were facts- then we would have contradicting facts- and that makes no sense. Obviously, you need evidence supporting eyewitness accounts, whenever possible.

let me repeat that - it you agree that testimony is a form of evidence your assertion that there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis that explosives were used makes no sense what so ever BECAUSE many people that were in the building claim to have heard explosives.

I challenge you to find a single person who claims to have heard EXPLOSIVES. Notice how you changed your claim in one paragraph from "explosions" to "explosives".

Did you hope no one would notice?

[Belz...]

I am more than a little aware that I am in the minority on this forum because I don't buy the official story

That's a very nice way of putting it that happens to be an appeal to emotions.

High explosives can blow up a tank. Low explosives cannot. High explosives can cut through steel. Low explosives cannot. The reason for this (off the top of my head) is that the high explosive reaction is characterized by detonation velocities in the millions of feet per second.

Millions of feet per second ?

So high explosives can cover several kilometers in a second ? Is that it ?

[Belz...]

OH SORRY, i was off by a couple of zeroes

Yeah, three orders of magnitude seems small, doesn't it ?

because I'm trying to single handedly fend off an attack of bullies in a hostile forum where I can only type and research simultaneously at the same time.

Wow. Attacking forum members while whining about the forum features. If you came here with any knowledge of the subject matter, people who've been arguing this subject for almost two years now wouldn't take an exasperated tone with you.

The exact detonation velocity is not relevant.

Of course. When you're wrong, what you were wrong about is NEVER relevant.

What IS relevant, and what I am 100% correct in saying is that high explosives can cut through steel and destroy a hydraulic press, but burning jet fuel cannot, especially not from almost 100 floors away through floors walls, and multiple elevator shafts.

Actually, that IS irrelevant.

That's just one guy's opinion who doesn't want to be labeled a "crackpot" by his colleagues at Columbia. It's a statement of opinion, not a scientific one And guess what, I work for Columbia and I know how unpopular anyone is who asks too many questions about 9-11.

That's an argument from conspiracy. Or something. There, I've just invented a few fallacy.

This deck is as stacked as it gets.

Critical thinking is pretty annoying, isn't it ?

[Belz...]

- there is no evidence of explosives because if there were explosives the hard evidence exploded.

Obviously you don't know much about explosives, then.

- The historical record of terrorism against America is another valid reason to explore the ED hypothesis. I'm sure you are all aware of the 1993 WTC attack using a truck bomb in the subbasement at the WTC.

Yeah, except this time everybody saw huge airliners crash into the buildings.

If terrorists could use this tactic of placing an explosive device in their target once, isn’t it reasonable to suggest they might try that tactic again, especially when combined with the use of planes? The reasonable person would think so .

Why ?

[brasil]

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence," and I agree 100% with thewholesoul's point that circumstantial evidence is all anyone on these forums is working with, and that by any standard, legal or otherwise, it IS evidence. Rodriguez, Morelli, Pecoraro, Cachiolli... all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives. To deny this is to flat out deny evidence. No one here is going to find any steel to test for explosives residue because the evidence was consciously destroyed by the USG. When evidence in the largest crime in American History is destroyed, something is very, very wrong.

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

I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story, because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.

Let me simplify what I just said: Totovader, Gravy, and others on this board have no hard evidence either. This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence. Gravy's papers are filled with links to the same open source information we all have access to

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

If you're so in love with the "official story" then you should also believe G.W.Bush and his clan wholeheartedly when they tell us that's who the perpetrators were.

[beachnut]

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence," and I agree 100% with thewholesoul's point that circumstantial evidence is all anyone on these forums is working with, and that by any standard, legal or otherwise, it IS evidence. Rodriguez, Morelli, Pecoraro, Cachiolli... all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives. To deny this is to flat out deny evidence. No one here is going to find any steel to test for explosives residue because the evidence was consciously destroyed by the USG. When evidence in the largest crime in American History is destroyed, something is very, very wrong.

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

I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story, because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.

Let me simplify what I just said: Totovader, Gravy, and others on this board have no hard evidence either. This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence. Gravy's papers are filled with links to the same open source information we all have access to

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

If you're so in love with the "official story" then you should also believe G.W.Bush and his clan wholeheartedly when they tell us that's who the perpetrators were.
You have no evidence. So what is new. You claim you are not a truther, but you have no idea what happen, you have no evidence to support your ideas so you make up a post about nothing? What is your story?

19 terrorist did it, you missed it. Did you miss it? What is your problem, you say you are not a truther but spew truther logic and junk.

6 years and you still are not good at figuring out 9/11. If you were on flight 93 maybe you would have some incentive for figuring out 9/11 quickly like the passengers did in minutes. You have had 6 years and all you can do is whine about things, yet flight 93 heroes figure it out and took ACTION. If you have some ideas on 9/11 you must supply the proof, you could than take action and be better at 9/11 topics.

[brasil]

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. If youtube had existed back then I'm sure we would have put some videos up on the web the way people do know. Search youtube for "ANFO" - that's the type of high explosive we are told was used in the OK bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing. You don't need college level math skills to work with this stuff, you just soak ammonium nitrate in fuel oil, confine it (due to the nature of the high explosive reaction, which is initiated by a shockwave of a critical velocity, it hardly even needs to be confined), and pop in a blasting cap with a long fuse. Go watch the youtube videos to see how easy it is. I bet it wasn't too hard to drive a car or two into the WTC parking garage with at least some quantity of this stuff in the trunk. I'm not saying for a second that's what happened, I'm just saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high, and anyone arguing otherwise ought to remove their head from the sand.

[Minadin]

Witness testimony isn't actually circumstantial evidence. It's witness testimony. Witnesses can testify about events that are circumstantial or direct in nature to a crime or occurance, but it's not generally viewed as something that's as reliable as circumstantial evidence that can be gathered objectively (such as finding a weapon on the person of a suspect in a murder) or direct evidence of a crime (such as video recordings of the event).

To my understanding, most of the evidence in most criminal trials is circumstantial. "Hard" evidence is, to my understanding, either direct or circumstantial evidence that is not witness testimony and has a demonstrable chain of custody, which means it can be legally admitted in a trial. It seems like you're using it in place of the term "direct" evidence.

It doesn't really matter who you believe carries the burden of proof. It's entirely possible to be convicted of a crime based solely on circumstantial evidence, and in fact, it's quite common. I understand that some legal scholars consider circumstantial evidence to be the best sort, because it's much more difficult to fabricate and easier to verify.

In any case, Brasil, it's nice to see that you've dropped the "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just have some questions . . . I'm not sure and I'm on the fence" bit. Honesty is the best policy and all.

[Totovader]

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. If youtube had existed back then I'm sure we would have put some videos up on the web the way people do know. Search youtube for "ANFO" - that's the type of high explosive we are told was used in the OK bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing. You don't need college level math skills to work with this stuff, you just soak ammonium nitrate in fuel oil, confine it (due to the nature of the high explosive reaction, which is initiated by a shockwave of a critical velocity, it hardly even needs to be confined), and pop in a blasting cap with a long fuse. Go watch the youtube videos to see how easy it is. I bet it wasn't too hard to drive a car or two into the WTC parking garage with at least some quantity of this stuff in the trunk. I'm not saying for a second that's what happened, I'm just saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high, and anyone arguing otherwise ought to remove their head from the sand.

:drool:

Is this a joke?

[Totovader]

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence," and I agree 100% with thewholesoul's point that circumstantial evidence is all anyone on these forums is working with, and that by any standard, legal or otherwise, it IS evidence. Rodriguez, Morelli, Pecoraro, Cachiolli... all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives. To deny this is to flat out deny evidence. No one here is going to find any steel to test for explosives residue because the evidence was consciously destroyed by the USG. When evidence in the largest crime in American History is destroyed, something is very, very wrong.

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

I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story, because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.

Let me simplify what I just said: Totovader, Gravy, and others on this board have no hard evidence either. This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence. Gravy's papers are filled with links to the same open source information we all have access to

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

If you're so in love with the "official story" then you should also believe G.W.Bush and his clan wholeheartedly when they tell us that's who the perpetrators were.

Here we see a perfect demonstration of the ambiguous middle ground fallacy: brasil wants to pretend that claiming no one has any evidence means that he's right.

This- of course- is self-defeating, and rejects the scientific principles he was trying to bastardize earlier.

[SDC]

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. If youtube had existed back then I'm sure we would have put some videos up on the web the way people do know. Search youtube for "ANFO" - that's the type of high explosive we are told was used in the OK bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing. You don't need college level math skills to work with this stuff, you just soak ammonium nitrate in fuel oil, confine it (due to the nature of the high explosive reaction, which is initiated by a shockwave of a critical velocity, it hardly even needs to be confined), and pop in a blasting cap with a long fuse. Go watch the youtube videos to see how easy it is. I bet it wasn't too hard to drive a car or two into the WTC parking garage with at least some quantity of this stuff in the trunk. I'm not saying for a second that's what happened, I'm just saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high, and anyone arguing otherwise ought to remove their head from the sand.

Is there anything he can't do? Anything he doesn't know?? I'd swoon if, but I'm not.

[dbalsdon]

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.

Yep. That might've been their hypothesis... for a couple of minutes, until someone probably went into the car park/basement and saw that there was no sign of a vehicle explosion.

[R.Mackey]

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence," and I agree 100% with thewholesoul's point that circumstantial evidence is all anyone on these forums is working with, and that by any standard, legal or otherwise, it IS evidence. Rodriguez, Morelli, Pecoraro, Cachiolli... all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives. To deny this is to flat out deny evidence. No one here is going to find any steel to test for explosives residue because the evidence was consciously destroyed by the USG. When evidence in the largest crime in American History is destroyed, something is very, very wrong.

Stuff and nonsense!

Here's a brief list of the "Evidence," that you say we don't have, in support of the hypothesis that damage in the basement levels was caused by jet fuel, and jet fuel alone:

Rigorous estimate of the jet fuel contained in the aircraft prior to impact
Modeling demonstrating that a large fraction of it would remain in the structures
Architectural diagrams identifying three large pathways from the impact zone to the basement
Witness statements saying that jet fuel was smelled, both throughout the Towers and in the vicinity of the basement explosions
Witness statements that fireballs were seen in the basements
Witness statements of occupants and rescue workers that three elevators were cut by impact, and fell to the basement, leaving a clear pathway
Burns on victims consistent with jet fuel deflagration
Witness statements that are wholly consistent with jet fuel deflagration
Calculations demonstrating the energy of such a deflagration is easily consistent with the level of damage
No evidence of major structural damage, such as totally destroyed floors and ceilings, that would be required for a 1993 WTC Bombing style attack
Seismic records that demonstrate no detonations at any time
No witness statements consistent with the sound of a distinct detonation event
Precedent in the form of the 1945 Empire State Building aircraft impact

You, on the other hand, indeed do not have any evidence. As a result, your attempt to equivocate my position with yours is absolute poppycock.

Heck, you won't even tell me what you think your mythical bomb did. You accepted fireballs, so where does the fireball stop and your bomb begin? You've already entered the realm of gradualism.

Unless you can support your belief with evidence, we're done here.

[brasil]

You have no evidence. So what is new. You claim you are not a truther, but you have no idea what happen, you have no evidence to support your ideas so you make up a post about nothing? What is your story?

19 terrorist did it, you missed it. Did you miss it? What is your problem, you say you are not a truther but spew truther logic and junk.

6 years and you still are not good at figuring out 9/11. If you were on flight 93 maybe you would have some incentive for figuring out 9/11 quickly like the passengers did in minutes. You have had 6 years and all you can do is whine about things, yet flight 93 heroes figure it out and took ACTION. If you have some ideas on 9/11 you must supply the proof, you could than take action and be better at 9/11 topics.

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

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

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

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

[beachnut]

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. If youtube had existed back then I'm sure we would have put some videos up on the web the way people do know. Search youtube for "ANFO" - that's the type of high explosive we are told was used in the OK bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing. You don't need college level math skills to work with this stuff, you just soak ammonium nitrate in fuel oil, confine it (due to the nature of the high explosive reaction, which is initiated by a shockwave of a critical velocity, it hardly even needs to be confined), and pop in a blasting cap with a long fuse. Go watch the youtube videos to see how easy it is. I bet it wasn't too hard to drive a car or two into the WTC parking garage with at least some quantity of this stuff in the trunk. I'm not saying for a second that's what happened, I'm just saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high, and anyone arguing otherwise ought to remove their head from the sand.
So, I blew up my back yard with sugar and KNO3, who cares? But this post make you a truther. You lied, you said you were not a truther, or was that Zayla?

OMG, they found sugar and there is K, N, and O at the WTC. It was a sugar bomb!!! Wake up and smell the sugar burning...

[Lurker]

We've all heard reports of Arab terrorists "casing out government buildings" so it would be an option to sit in a car with tinted windows and high-powered binoculars and observe the building. If that didn't yield any valuable intel about which part of the building to target, then perhaps I could start calling the Pentagon and socially engineer my way into getting an idea of where the SecDef or Joint Chiefs (or is that the same thing?) offices are. While all this was going on, I could search the internet for open source information. I vaguely remember a story back in 2001 or 2002 about the USG removing thousands (or more) of pages off .gov servers which contained information meant for the public, but that they decided could help terrorists.

PErsonally, I doubt the terrorists were looking for more than "hitting" the Pentagon. I doubt they were concerned about which side might do the most damage or where the SecDef was. At best, they probably cased it to determine the best avenue of approach for the plane.

The more you investigate and research, hte higher your likelihood of being discovered becomes. Trying to get teh SecDef via a plane crash would be rather silly. You have no idea what his schedule is, where he is if he is in the PEntagon, precise maneuvering control over the plane. No, I seriously doubt they would bother with that level of detail in the plot. Of course, looking back as you are they may have wished to do some things better.

[Totovader]

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

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

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

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

Dibbs! Dibbs! Dibbs!


:viking1

[stateofgrace]

When I see the conspiracy theorists who believe the government's conspiracy demonstrate irrefutable, hard evidence that 19 Arab hijackers directed by Usama Bin Laden were responsible for every aspect of the attacks (or even some aspects), then I'll work harder to come up with some "evidence" of my own.
And your comment on the indictments, trials and jailing of 911 terror suspects in Europe is? I missed it the first time round.


I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story, because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.


Wrong there is no official story, just hundreds and hundreds of witness accounts, forensic evidence physical evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda who have continually admitted to carrying out this attack.


Let me simplify what I just said: Totovader, Gravy, and others on this board have no hard evidence either. This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence. Gravy's papers are filled with links to the same open source information we all have access to


No you are dealing pure speculation and have not offered a single fact to back it up.

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

No it is not, it is pure speculation backed by neither fact nor evidence

If you're so in love with the "official story" then you should also believe G.W.Bush and his clan wholeheartedly when they tell us that's who the perpetrators were.

I cannot stand Bush, so stop resorting to the oldest childish excuse in the twoofer book; yes I called you a twoofer, because you are sunbeam. You are not talking to children; you are amongst adults, start behaving like one and back your speculation, claims innuendoes with some form of facts.

[Lurker]

With all of the spectacular feats they accomplished that day, which had never been anticipated in the history of the world (oh, wait, that's just what Bush on Condi told us... that might not be true come to think of it), somehow I don't think finding a flight that left an hour or two later was going to be a big issue when the payoff of that decision was killing an additional 50,000 American residents*. In my experience flying cross country, there are always at least 3 flights per day on any given airline.


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

[SDC]

Dibbs! Dibbs! Dibbs!


:viking1

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

[brasil]

:drool:

Is this a joke?

What part of it do you think is a joke, Totovader?

[beachnut]

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

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

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

And $100, while not a huge sum, is on the table for that other challenge. You can hold me to that.
You owe me 100 bucks. Do you need my paypal account?

More stupid truther questions? No, you tell me why your ranting means anything? You are deep into 9/11 truth ideas; too deep for me. Lay some more out about why you can't figure out 9/11 in 6 years and the passengers on 93 did.

BTW, if you studied 93 at all, you would not bet me 100 bucks. I doubt you will ever give me the money you know I have earned due to the evidence in the public domain. You have no facts after 6 years, and believe 9/11 truth's lies. And you are not a truther?

[R.Mackey]

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

At this point I despair of disabusing you of your unfounded beliefs, but this one has a simple answer.

It's illegal to release these recordings publicly. Simple as that. Has nothing to do with Sept. 11, and everything to do with rights of privacy in criminal investigations.

[Totovader]

What part of it do you think is a joke, Totovader?

The part where you think blowing stuff up in your back yard makes you an expert on explosives. That is... quite ridiculous. I thought for sure you were kidding. I guess I was wrong. Color me amazed.

[DGM]

brasil:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100482

This would be a good place to tell us the "spectacular feats" the hijackers did.

[brasil]

[QUOTE]Wrong there is no official story, just hundreds and hundreds of witness accounts, forensic evidence physical evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda who have continually admitted to carrying out this attack.[QUOTE]

sorry! that above section was meant to be a quote, those were not my words! ^

And how then would you categorize the 9/11 Commission Report? Saying there is "no official story" is a perfect example of Gravy's term "moving the goalposts."

[beachnut]

Send me 100 bucks soon, I need a new microwave for Christmas http://beachymon.com/photo/duck77.jpg

[Garb]

Wrong there is no official story, just hundreds and hundreds of witness accounts, forensic evidence physical evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda who have continually admitted to carrying out this attack.

And how then would you categorize the 9/11 Commission Report? Saying there is "no official story" is a perfect example of Gravy's term "moving the goalposts."

Do you even know what that means?

[Lurker]

Speaking for myself, I apprecaited RMackey's list of evidence for a fireball in the basement. I would like to see a similar list from brasil that he finds compelling for a bomb in the basement. Thus far, if I were to speak for him it would be:

1. Building damage more consistent with explosives than with fireballs
2. A 30 Ton press said be be "gone" more consistent with explosives than a fireball
3. Someone being knocked over from the force of an explosion

Brasil, can you add or edit this list to encompass your points? I would like to compare vs RMackey's list and perhaps we could work to discuss certain points on those lists.

[brasil]

The part where you think blowing stuff up in your back yard makes you an expert on explosives. That is... quite ridiculous. I thought for sure you were kidding. I guess I was wrong. Color me amazed.

Find me the post where I explicitly stated that I am an "expert on explosives" and I will send you a money order for $50. So far you haven't taken a crack at any of the more difficult points I've raised, only attempted to ridicule me using truly childish methods. Your $50 is waiting. Consider it beer money for your high school's graduation party, if you can even win it from me.

[stateofgrace]

Wrong there is no official story, just hundreds and hundreds of witness accounts, forensic evidence physical evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda who have continually admitted to carrying out this attack.

And how then would you categorize the 9/11 Commission Report? Saying there is "no official story" is a perfect example of Gravy's term "moving the goalposts."

It is a report made up of all the available evidence such as eye witness accounts, physical evidence, forensic evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda.

There is NO offical story.

Now I have answered your question, answer mine.

[Lurker]

The part where you think blowing stuff up in your back yard makes you an expert on explosives. That is... quite ridiculous. I thought for sure you were kidding. I guess I was wrong. Color me amazed.

I used to soak tennis balls in gasoline and play tennis at night with a friend. The tennis balls looked like fireballs. I retract my earlier statement about not being an expert on fireballs.

Brasil, just funnin. I presume you feel your knowledge of explosives is based on more than your backyard experimentation.

[brasil]

Do you even know what that means?

The first sentence was supposed to be a quote. Those are not my words, which is why the post doesn't really make sense. Sorry about that, if that's why you're asking.

[Garb]

The first sentence was supposed to be a quote. Those are not my words, which is why the post doesn't really make sense. Sorry about that, if that's why you're asking.

No, I was talking about "moving the goalposts." Unless you can find that Stateofgrace once claimed that there was an official story you can't consider him moving the goalposts.

[Totovader]

Find me the post where I explicitly stated that I am an "expert on explosives" and I will send you a money order for $50. So far you haven't taken a crack at any of the more difficult points I've raised, only attempted to ridicule me using truly childish methods. Your $50 is waiting. Consider it beer money for your high school's graduation party, if you can even win it from me.

Now you want to play semantics?

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. [...]

If your point was simply to assert that you have "knowledge" of explosives... then you have no point. If you wouldn't be able to apply for a job in the relevant field, then what the crap was the point of trying to showcase your expertise?

It doesn't work both ways- either you were trying to infer expertise- or you were saying something useless- much like your personal attack after you claimed that's all I was doing.

I'm not sure it helps your case if you claim that the majority of your claims are weak.

[brasil]

At this point I despair of disabusing you of your unfounded beliefs, but this one has a simple answer.

It's illegal to release these recordings publicly. Simple as that. Has nothing to do with Sept. 11, and everything to do with rights of privacy in criminal investigations.

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

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

[Pookster]

... And how then would you categorize the 9/11 Commission Report? Saying there is "no official story" is a perfect example of Gravy's term "moving the goalposts."

I don't follow your perfect example. If this is a perfect example of moving the goalposts, where were the goalposts to begin with, and where did they get moved to?

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

[Pookster]

Do you even know what that means?

You beat me to it.

[brasil]

Speaking for myself, I apprecaited RMackey's list of evidence for a fireball in the basement. I would like to see a similar list from brasil that he finds compelling for a bomb in the basement. Thus far, if I were to speak for him it would be:

1. Building damage more consistent with explosives than with fireballs
2. A 30 Ton press said be be "gone" more consistent with explosives than a fireball
3. Someone being knocked over from the force of an explosion

Brasil, can you add or edit this list to encompass your points? I would like to compare vs RMackey's list and perhaps we could work to discuss certain points on those lists.

Thank you Lurker, I want to get back on track with this, but I'm going to lunch right now. While I was out last night I had this great thought to add to that debate which I'm going to think over and then post. I want everyone reading this to know that R.Mackey is the only member of this discussion so far who has presented anything worth serioulsy responding to, and I intend to keep responding to his points. It just takes time. Most of the other posts have devolved into an irrelevant pissing contest, dont you think?

[brasil]

Now you want to play semantics?

Listen, buddy, you posted on this thead that I claimed I'm "an expert on explosives" and I called you on it and put my money where my mouth is. You lost. Be a man and get over it.

[beachnut]

Find me the post where I explicitly stated that I am an "expert on explosives" and I will send you a money order for $50. So far you haven't taken a crack at any of the more difficult points I've raised, only attempted to ridicule me using truly childish methods. Your $50 is waiting. Consider it beer money for your high school's graduation party, if you can even win it from me.
Yes you claimed you were an expert and you know about explosives, pay up.

You have no facts, you have no difficult stuff to debunk you just have your failed ideas.

[brasil]

By the way, I have a really great resource available to me who I'm going to talk to this weekend. One of my neighbors is only in his late 20's and has already served in the U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, and has finished his service. He can't talk about any details of the actual operations he was on, but we've had some great talks about the general types of things he's trained in. I bet anything he's an "explosives expert" (i'm just an "explosives amateur" of course) and can help settle quite a few issues here.

[beachnut]

Thank you Lurker, I want to get back on track with this, but I'm going to lunch right now. While I was out last night I had this great thought to add to that debate which I'm going to think over and then post. I want everyone reading this to know that R.Mackey is the only member of this discussion so far who has presented anything worth serioulsy responding to, and I intend to keep responding to his points. It just takes time. Most of the other posts have devolved into an irrelevant pissing contest, dont you think?
I have learned from your post. You are going to lunch, and you will never have facts to support your opinions on 9/11.

[R.Mackey]

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

Take a look here (http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/Manuals/CVR_Handbook.pdf) for the standard NTSB operating procedure, and here (http://www.alpa.org/alpa/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentId=337) for an article discussing the legal precedent. The fact that the CVR was played for relatives is itself much more release than usual. Hardly indicative of a "cover-up."

Also read here (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/04/moussaoui_jury_.html) where the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals clearly indicates that any release of the CVR, even to other investigations, is predicated on willingness of family members to allow it. This demonstrates, as I said above, that the fundamental issue is one of right to privacy, not caprice of the Bush Administration.



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

The very existence of the FOIA system dispels any such notion of tyranny, as you suggest above. I can only assume your grasp of international history is as weak as that of explosives.

[brasil]

Yes you claimed you were an expert and you know about explosives, pay up.

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

[Totovader]

Listen, buddy, you posted on this thead that I claimed I'm "an expert on explosives" and I called you on it and put my money where my mouth is. You lost. Be a man and get over it.

You ignored my entire point- how does that mean I'm not a man?

You changed your assertion- that's not my fault. As I said in the post you completely ignored: either you were asserting expertise, or you were saying absolutely nothing useful.

Which is it?

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

[Pookster]

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

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

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2897728&postcount=28

[Gravy]

I'm not interested in your snide, "smartass" psychological analysis of why I might not want to call Mike Pecoraro. Why don't you call him and tape it if you're so shameless? After all, it's you who has put your face and name out there and made 9-11 "debunking" into a full-time job. You're practically a member of the press now. I think you should call him.

but yea go ahead, the truth may not be worth 5 bucks of my money but it is certainly worth 5 bucks of someone-elses. why dont you ring felipe David...his testimony is far more damning of the official stroy?


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

Could these people possibly be any more pathetic?

[brasil]

The very existence of the FOIA system dispels any such notion of tyranny, as you suggest above. I can only assume your grasp of international history is as weak as that of explosives.

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

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

It's your grasp of "the way things really are" that is weak. Like I said, the law is only what G.W.Bush says it is at any given moment. Gosh, I wonder why the Bush administration would want to block "thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House" from the 9/11 Commission investigators? Could it be evidence that Clinton was doing a good job? Or even more frightening, could it be evidence that Clinton was IN on the conspiracy?

The "existence" of the FOIA proves nothing. It's how any given adminstration administers the FOIA that proves something. I have to admit, and i know it's a little bit embarrassing, but I'm a card-carrying member of the "reality-based community." (God, I just feel like came out of the closet or something.)