A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Anyway, he's lying. In my response to him I told him the source of that inconsequential statement: William Rodriguez. There's a photo of me speaking with Rodriguez on the first page of the paper. I suggested that RedIbis contact him with his own questions. . .
The catch is, I think, (s)he is choosing not to take your word that it came from an interview between Rodriguez and yourself and is looking for some sort of further corroboration.

Just as if RedIbis were to follow your suggestion and contact Rodriguez and then proceed to return here and state that Rodriguez denies any such interview took place.

However, all of this merely bolsters my point that the quote is not needed by any claim or conclusion in the paper and is added for context or for other (non-formal logic) reasons.

So, we've, more or less, concluded that the source of the quote in question; or, more importantly, the quote itself; is not substantive to the paper. Therefore, the quote cannot be construed as any sort of error of fact or logic in the paper (in as much as grammatical error could be equated to either).

[RedIbis]

Anyway, he's lying...I don't know why people continue to deal with this blatant liar.

How am I liar?

What lie did I commit? Please use the quote function.

If you're going to make such an outrageous charge from the comfort of your selective ignore list, at least back up what you say.

Otherwise, take a deep breath, we'll shake e-hands, and start all over again. I'm not a bad guy. I was born in NYC. We might get along just fine, as long as you're a Yankees fan.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think we're on to something, sir. I hope we both get answers to the questions we agree on.

Does Mr. Griffith's account suggest that there is a significant amount of time between the event which dropped the freight elevator and the fireball reported after the "woman" was rescued?
Could you refer me to a page number for that please?

[T.A.M.]

Red, I think the issue is somantic. The fact is that Mark got the info from Rodriguez. Your issue seems to be with the lack of citation stating as much in his actual paper. That is an issue YOU have with the paper. I do not think that in the scope of the paper's creation, or the relevance of the information to the project, this is an important matter...I do not think one needs to cite every little minutia detail one picks up in conversations with people and then places it in the paper...unless it is of importance to the paper. You seem to think it is...then fine, to you it is an oversight.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

The catch is, I think, (s)he is choosing not to take your word that it came from an interview between Rodriguez and yourself and is looking for some sort of further corroboration.If this matters to him for some reason, and he won't believe me or Rodriguez, then he should take the time to listen to, to watch, and to read Rodriguez's interviews, which I have done. Rodriguez describes where he was and where he wound up. But RedIbis will do none of these things, because he's intellectually dishonest and deeply in denial. That's why I have him on ignore.

[RedIbis]

Could you refer me to a page number for that please?

That would be page 1 of Gravy's paper in the OP.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That would be page 1 of Gravy's paper in the OP.
The relevant section's "Arturo Griffith was in a freight elevator when the building was attacked. The elevator dropped to B1 (the basement level), fell below the landing. He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him. 'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.' " wording gives a connotation of a lengthy amount of time, however there is nothing that allows us to determine how much time passed between events.

Now, there are some calculations that could be done to give us a rough idea of what we might be looking at:

How long would it take the fuel to fall from the impact point to the sub-basement?
Where was the elevator when it failed and how long would it take to reach the sub-basement?
How long did it take the rescuers to respond to the elevator having crashed?*
How long did it take the rescuers to extract both individuals?*


* These should be tempered with the realization that, unless the rescuers were referring to a time-keeping device, their estimates on the times may be wildly off from reality.

[Gravy]

Another thing to add to your list, Arkan, is that not all the fuel that came down the shafts had to do so just after impact.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Another thing to add to your list, Arkan, is that not all the fuel that came down the shafts had to do so just after impact.
True, though I'd be more interested in establishing an absolute minimum time and then looking at mitigating factors.

[Norseman]

"He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him."

I suggest you check out the symptom's of concussion/unconsciousness. They include sensory problems, confusion, loss of time frame etc. This is a description of how Arturo experienced the situation. While the actual condition inside the elevator might have been better than Arturo perceived it to be due to his symptoms. And how difficult do you think it is to find a person just inside the door of a roughly 9*9 feet elevator car.

And you're trying to tell me, and I suppose what Gravy is trying to tell Rodriguez, is that this all happens before the fireball in the elevator shaft.

Yes, according to Arturo:
Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.
Source (http://911digitalarchive.org/parser.php?object_id=514)

And it fits with what we know happened technically when the aircraft hit the building and all the other witness accounts. You need to put what you read in to the overall context.

[PhantomWolf]

First, how do you know Mr. Rodriguez "was only a hundred feet from the collapse”? What is the source for this?

I'd suggest that sinceit is known he dived under a fire engine to escape getting crushed, and that we know the fire engine was beside WTC 6 and the airbridge there, that would put him about there when the collapse happened.

As to the late fireball in the lift, it has no bearing on Rodriguez's story because he claims that the explosions he heard were a few seconds apart, not minutes later, and we know that the first fireball down the lift shafts happened right after the crash. That others may have occured later is irrelevant.

[Swing Dangler]

Now, there are some calculations that could be done to give us a rough idea of what we might be looking at:

How long would it take the fuel to fall from the impact point to the sub-basement?
Where was the elevator when it failed and how long would it take to reach the sub-basement?
How long did it take the rescuers to respond to the elevator having crashed?*
How long did it take the rescuers to extract both individuals?*


I would also add:

1. A detailed plot positioning of the survivors in the basement in relation to the damage using the layout of the WTC that is found in the public domain.

2. A graphic, layout, or blueprint, showing the route that the fireball traveled to the subbasement down to level B-4 and still account for the survivors stories within and near the elevators. This is in my opinion the most important piece of information that absolutely no one has yet to provide. I cannot plot the fireball route and account for the survivor's experiences and stories as found in the public domain. I suspect that no one can by using jet fuel or a fireball as the means of destruction which leaves open one other possibility.

3. The overpressure data used to determine the amount of energy needed to cause the damage witnessed in the basement levels.

4. An explanation of how people and elevator shafts survived the fire and overpressure nearest the impact zone, but garages, offices, machine shops, PATH Level Plaza and people were damaged or destroyed farthest away from impact.

5. An explanation of why NIST did not choose to consider the gaping hole in the North Tower as a source of oxygen for the initial explosion which in turn determined the amount of fuel remaining in the building and the amount of fuel that was ignited upon impact. Without that hole, there is a lot more jet fuel to use an excuse.

we know that the first fireball down the lift shafts happened right after the crash.
Source?

[Dave Rogers]

5. An explanation of why NIST did not choose to consider the gaping hole in the North Tower as a source of oxygen for the initial explosion which in turn determined the amount of fuel remaining in the building and the amount of fuel that was ignited upon impact. Without that hole, there is a lot more jet fuel to use an excuse.


We already dealt with that one, I thought. The explosion produced an overpressure, so there was no way for air to come in through the hole to contribute to the explosion against that overpressure. The only oxygen available to contribute to that explosion was therefore the air already inside the tower; even that is an overestimate, as some of it would be forced out through the hole by the explosion overpressure.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

An investigation confirmed controlled demolition?

Rodriguez: "Because that came out in the investigation that, probably that, this explosion was to weaken the base of the foundation of the building, to be synchronized with the hit on the top, so it would fall automatically." Source (11:50)
Notice William says that the explosion was to weaken the base of the foundation. Yet later Gravy turns it into
Rodriguez's contention that the basement explosions were deliberate, to damage the tower core columns, is nonsensical. There is no evidence that the elevator shaft explosions caused structural damage.

Within that segment of the paper, there is no contention by Willie that the explosion was to damage the core.

Gravy, why did you turn 'base of the foundation' into the 'tower core columns'?


The people who were closest to the elevator shaft explosions were burned by jet fuel: many of them tell us so.
If you read many of these accounts closely, these survivors are later told what happened, and then repeat what they are told.

[Swing Dangler]

We already dealt with that one, I thought. The explosion produced an overpressure, so there was no way for air to come in through the hole to contribute to the explosion against that overpressure. The only oxygen available to contribute to that explosion was therefore the air already inside the tower; even that is an overestimate, as some of it would be forced out through the hole by the explosion overpressure.

Dave

If I'm not mistaken, NIST uses that number alone to determine the remaining fuel level when in fact the oxygen from the hole would have contributed to the burning of more fuel. Or am I wrong?

Any chance of addressing the others points?

[Dave Rogers]

If I'm not mistaken, NIST uses that number alone to determine the remaining fuel level when in fact the oxygen from the hole would have contributed to the burning of more fuel. Or am I wrong?

I just explained why that number is reasonable when estimating the amount of fuel consumed in the original explosion, and why the oxygen from the hole wouldn't have contributed to the burning of more fuel because oxygen would have been forced out, not in. The remaining amount of fuel is what would have then been available for combustion, including fireballs and accelerant for the contents fire. This is all fairly obvious.

Any chance of addressing the others points?

I'll leave that to anybody who's got the time. Frankly, when I post a line of argument and you give a response to it that shows that you've completely ignored it, I fail to see the point of saying any more.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]I just explained why that number is reasonable when estimating the amount of fuel consumed in the original explosion, and why the oxygen from the hole wouldn't have contributed to the burning of more fuel because oxygen would have been forced out, not in. The remaining amount of fuel is what would have then been available for combustion, including fireballs and accelerant for the contents fire. This is all fairly obvious.
The remaining amount of fuel for combustion and already on fire.
Lets not leave that out. That already on fire part is a bit tricky.

I'll leave that to anybody who's got the time. Frankly, when I post a line of argument and you give a response to it that shows that you've completely ignored it, I fail to see the point of saying any more.

I would dodge those other points too especially considering they can't be explained by a fireball from jet fuel. That is why Gravy has me on ignore.

[RedIbis]

[QUOTE=Dave Rogers;2975071][QUOTE]
That is why Gravy has me on ignore.

You too? As Apollo has already suggested, consider it a badge of honor. We're an exclusive group.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=Swing Dangler;2975150][QUOTE=Dave Rogers;2975071]

You too? As Apollo has already suggested, consider it a badge of honor. We're an exclusive group.

I guess we should wear it with pride. I was one of the first to critique that paper early on. Missing sources, assumptions, and down right invalid interjections into the paper by Gravy himself. I think he was surprised I actually read it.
I thought for sure they could come up with some answers to the valid points I posted below.

It must be typical to dodge and ignore points that don't fit the official story.

He did use a bit of logic from my own work it appears. Located here. (http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/2007/03/case-for-explosives-at-world-trade.html)

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2975071#post2975071)

You too? As Apollo has already suggested, consider it a badge of honor. We're an exclusive group.



As far as I know, Gravy hasn't put me on ignore. Something weird seems to have happened with attributions here.

Dave

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I would also add:

1. A detailed plot positioning of the survivors in the basement in relation to the damage using the layout of the WTC that is found in the public domain.

2. A graphic, layout, or blueprint, showing the route that the fireball traveled to the subbasement down to level B-4 and still account for the survivors stories within and near the elevators. This is in my opinion the most important piece of information that absolutely no one has yet to provide. I cannot plot the fireball route and account for the survivor's experiences and stories as found in the public domain. I suspect that no one can by using jet fuel or a fireball as the means of destruction which leaves open one other possibility.

3. The overpressure data used to determine the amount of energy needed to cause the damage witnessed in the basement levels.

4. An explanation of how people and elevator shafts survived the fire and overpressure nearest the impact zone, but garages, offices, machine shops, PATH Level Plaza and people were damaged or destroyed farthest away from impact.

5. An explanation of why NIST did not choose to consider the gaping hole in the North Tower as a source of oxygen for the initial explosion which in turn determined the amount of fuel remaining in the building and the amount of fuel that was ignited upon impact. Without that hole, there is a lot more jet fuel to use an excuse.


Source?
Moving the goals. The question posted by RedIbis dealt specifically with the time between rescue and the time of the fireball. You are attempting to expand it. You have an existing thread for such discussion; please keep it there.

If I'm not mistaken, NIST uses that number alone to determine the remaining fuel level when in fact the oxygen from the hole would have contributed to the burning of more fuel. Or am I wrong?

Any chance of addressing the others points?
Your wrong:

2.2.1.2 Fire Development
It is estimated, based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings. A review of photographic and video records show that the aircraft fully entered the buildings prior to any visual evidence of flames at the exteriors of the buildings. This suggests that, as the aircraft crashed into and plowed across the buildings, they distributed jet fuel throughout the impact area to form a flammable “cloud.” Ignition of this cloud resulted in a rapid
pressure rise, expelling a fuel rich mixture from the impact area into shafts and through other openings caused by the crashes, resulting in dramatic fireballs.

Although only limited video footage is available that shows the crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into WTC 1 and the ensuing fireballs, extensive video records of the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 into WTC 2 are available. These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east, and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture. Experimentally based correlations for similar fireballs (Zalosh 1995) were used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed.
The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, it is reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the aircraft struck WTC 1.

Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.
The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse level. This breakage was most likely caused by overpressure in the elevator shafts. Damage to the walls of the elevator shafts was also observed as low as the 23rd floor, presumably as a result of the overpressures developed by the burning of the vapor cloud on the impact floors.

If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved. Fuel that fell to the floor and
did not flow out of the building would have burned as a pool or spill fire at the point where it came to rest.

The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed
in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact
floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.

As the jet fuel burned, the resulting heat ignited office contents throughout a major portion of several of the impact floors, as well as combustible material within the aircraft itself.
source (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf) Section 2 pgs 21-22

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Something weird seems to have happened with attributions here.


Swing Dangler screwed up one of his posts. It was then quoted, passing the screw-up down the line...

Swing Dangler -> RedIbis -> Swing Dangler -> you

[Garb]

Notice William says that the explosion was to weaken the base of the foundation. Yet later Gravy turns it into


Within that segment of the paper, there is no contention by Willie that the explosion was to damage the core.

Is that even the issue? The issue is William believes there was damage on the lower floors due to said explosion. There was none.

Gravy, why did you turn 'base of the foundation' into the 'tower core columns'?

You are being pretty picky. What exactly is misleading about it? I could contend it is a mistake by Gravy, but what else would it be besides that?


If you read many of these accounts closely, these survivors are later told what happened, and then repeat what they are told.

Are you talking about the fact they were burned or that it was jet fuel?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2974957#post2974957)
Gravy, why did you turn 'base of the foundation' into the 'tower core columns'?Because that's what the "foundation" consists of at the center of the building, where the jet fuel explosion was.

[FatesWebb]

Red, I think the issue is somantic. The fact is that Mark got the info from Rodriguez. Your issue seems to be with the lack of citation stating as much in his actual paper. That is an issue YOU have with the paper. I do not think that in the scope of the paper's creation, or the relevance of the information to the project, this is an important matter...I do not think one needs to cite every little minutia detail one picks up in conversations with people and then places it in the paper...unless it is of importance to the paper. You seem to think it is...then fine, to you it is an oversight.

TAM:)

so he interviewed Rodriguez? can we hear the tape?

[Swing Dangler]

Because that's what the "foundation" consists of at the center of the building, where the jet fuel explosion was.

But Gravy, William did not say the core of the building, he stated it was the foundation. They are two seperate parts of the structure.
What you did was change William's words to fit your description when in fact William did not state they were the core columns but instead the foundation.
A bit dishonest in my opinion.

You are being pretty picky. What exactly is misleading about it? I could contend it is a mistake by Gravy, but what else would it be besides that?
Well it is either a mistake, a misleading statement, or out right lie. I think it would be better to state exactly what William meant in his dicussion instead of twisting his words.

Gravy-Because that's what the "foundation" consists of at the center of the building, where the jet fuel explosion was.

Clear this up for us all.
1. Trace the route of the jet fuel and/or fire ball traveled to cause the destruction as far down as B-4. And please consider the survivors within the elevators and near the shafts who survived the overpressure. If you can not do this, there is no need to attack William R. any further.

2. Place in relation to the location of this jet fuel the survivors.

3. Calculate the necesary fuel/air ratio for the energy needed to cause a parking garage to be destroyed, walls to be cracked, people hurt, Path level Plaza cave-in, etc.

4. Determine how people closest to impact survived this over pressure but people and parts of the basement farthest away from impact did not.

5. Stop claiming it was jet fuel when people smelled kerosene when most likely it was diesel fuel from the parking garage as engineer, Mike P thought. Considering the destruction of the parking garage, diesel fuel is the better excuse for the smell instead of the jet fuel excuse. Have you ever considered this fact in the face of the destroyed parking garage and Path Plaza cave in??

6. Explain what Jenny Carr's audio record has captured prior to the first impact sound. To my knowlege there were no auto crashes prior to the first impact.

[beachnut]

But Gravy, William did not say the core of the building, he stated it was the foundation. They are two seperate parts of the structure.
What you did was change William's words to fit your description when in fact William did not state they were the core columns but instead the foundation.
A bit dishonest in my opinion.


Well it is either a mistake, a misleading statement, or out right lie. I think it would be better to state exactly what William meant in his dicussion instead of twisting his words.


Clear this up for us all.
1. Trace the route of the jet fuel and/or fire ball traveled to cause the destruction as far down as B-4. And please consider the survivors within the elevators and near the shafts who survived the overpressure. If you can not do this, there is no need to attack William R. any further.

2. Place in relation to the location of this jet fuel the survivors.

3. Calculate the necesary fuel/air ratio for the energy needed to cause a parking garage to be destroyed, walls to be cracked, people hurt, Path level Plaza cave-in, etc.

4. Determine how people closest to impact survived this over pressure but people and parts of the basement farthest away from impact did not.

5. Stop claiming it was jet fuel when people smelled kerosene when most likely it was diesel fuel from the parking garage as engineer, Mike P thought. Considering the destruction of the parking garage, diesel fuel is the better excuse for the smell instead of the jet fuel excuse. Have you ever considered this fact in the face of the destroyed parking garage and Path Plaza cave in??

6. Explain what Jenny Carr's audio record has captured prior to the first impact sound. To my knowlege there were no auto crashes prior to the first impact.
The big problem with your list of bs is if an explosive was used, there would be a dead William and dead people from concussions. You are missing the big picture, you may not have the experience as evidenced in your list. You must come up with the proof of explosives and you have failed for 6 years to come up with facts. When can we expect a breakthrough from 9/11 truth?

[RedIbis]

so he interviewed Rodriguez? can we hear the tape?

There is no tape. The entire account is based on what Gravy claims he heard Rodriguez say

In the second thread on this topic Rodriguez clarifies his position and what he told Gravy.

The two most important points being that Rodriguez never told Mark he was about 100ft from the tower when it collapsed.

And secondly, that Rodriguez never said he smelled kerosene in the basements. What Rodriguez reported was a fuel like smell, possibly gas or diesel when he was going up the tower in the stairwells.

Quite a difference.

[Mercutio]

Quite a difference.

And yet, still consistent with what Gravy said. These are minor quibbles on non-substantive points. He smelled a fuel-like smell. Ok... consistent with both Gravy's kerosene and your diesel. 100 feet away? Close enough; the point is that he was neither directly under the towers, nor in New Jersey. He was damned close. Gravy's narrative does not require him to have been precisely 100 feet away.

I have seen critiques where a statement, when examined, starts to unravel an entire story and expose it as a lie. I have also seen this "critique".

Quite a difference.

[WildCat]

The two most important points being that Rodriguez never told Mark he was about 100ft from the tower when it collapsed.
Which is completely irrelevant to anything in the paper! Why you fixate on this is bewildering, I can only assume that since you are unable to find errors in the important parts you desperately assail the minutia.

And secondly, that Rodriguez never said he smelled kerosene in the basements. What Rodriguez reported was a fuel like smell, possibly gas or diesel when he was going up the tower in the stairwells.
:dl:

[RedIbis]

And yet, still consistent with what Gravy said. These are minor quibbles on non-substantive points. He smelled a fuel-like smell. Ok... consistent with both Gravy's kerosene and your diesel. 100 feet away? Close enough; the point is that he was neither directly under the towers, nor in New Jersey. He was damned close. Gravy's narrative does not require him to have been precisely 100 feet away.

I have seen critiques where a statement, when examined, starts to unravel an entire story and expose it as a lie. I have also seen this "critique".

Quite a difference.


This is another example of a misquote that Gravy uses to support his hypothesis. I posted this in the other Gravy paper thread. It's sufficient for responding to this post as well as WildCat's.


As an example of Gravy's poor twisting of his words, there is this passage in Gravy's paper:

"There were jet fuel fireballs in the basement. Remember? You said this: 'When the explosion happened in the basement there was fire all over, and this guy tried to cover his face… '” (Video: William Rodriguez An American Hero. 2005, Snowshoe Films)

What Rodriguez calls an "explosion" Gravy concludes was "jet fuel fireballs".

Couldn't the explosion have been caused by something else?

[GT/CS]

This is another example of a misquote that Gravy uses to support his hypothesis. I posted this in the other Gravy paper thread. It's sufficient for responding to this post as well as WildCat's.


As an example of Gravy's poor twisting of his words, there is this passage in Gravy's paper:

"There were jet fuel fireballs in the basement. Remember? You said this: 'When the explosion happened in the basement there was fire all over, and this guy tried to cover his face… '” (Video: William Rodriguez An American Hero. 2005, Snowshoe Films)

What Rodriguez calls an "explosion" Gravy concludes was "jet fuel fireballs".

Couldn't the explosion have been caused by something else?

At that particular moment, most likely not.

[WildCat]

Couldn't the explosion have been caused by something else?
Yeah, Rodriquez says it was diesel, so it must have been a semi-truck that hit the WTC! Maybe one of the ones stealing all the trillions in gold from the vault!

:dl:

[Mercutio]

Couldn't the explosion have been caused by something else?

Certainly. Gravy does not assume that it was a jet fuel fireball, he concludes that it was. Most likely because it fits with all the other available evidence.

But of course, it could have been caused by something else. Not conventional explosives, because the characteristics of the blast are entirely wrong. Maybe someone's propane tank leaked and exploded... but I doubt it. Maybe someone got loose with a flame-thrower... but I doubt it. The characteristics of the explosion point to some sorts of causes, and away from others. Gravy's narrative is consistent with the evidence. Do you have another hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence?

[RedIbis]

Certainly. Gravy does not assume that it was a jet fuel fireball, he concludes that it was. Most likely because it fits with all the other available evidence.

But of course, it could have been caused by something else. Not conventional explosives, because the characteristics of the blast are entirely wrong. Maybe someone's propane tank leaked and exploded... but I doubt it. Maybe someone got loose with a flame-thrower... but I doubt it. The characteristics of the explosion point to some sorts of causes, and away from others. Gravy's narrative is consistent with the evidence. Do you have another hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence?


You're giving Gravy a very long leash. Just because we might be working towards a conclusion that we think is well corroborated does not mean we get to reword and misquote to fit our theory.

[Mercutio]

Please remember that advice when you read the troothers' websites. In my opinion, Gravy does not distort the words of those whom he quotes. If he does, in your opinion, please comment on the actions of the conspiracy theorists, using the same standards.

[RedIbis]

Please remember that advice when you read the troothers' websites. In my opinion, Gravy does not distort the words of those whom he quotes. If he does, in your opinion, please comment on the actions of the conspiracy theorists, using the same standards.

There are many irresponsible researchers on both sides of this debate. I am no more responsible for them as you are.

Gravy is responsible for his paper. I took issue with several of his claims. Rodriguez used the word "explosion" Gravy interpreted that as "jet fuel fireballs."

Since the presence of "jet fuel fireballs" is central to the thesis of his paper, this is a crucial point that deserves the utmost accuracy.

[Mercutio]

As said earlier, "jet fuel fireballs" is a conclusion, not an assumption, and it is consistent with the evidence and testimony. Even Rodriguez's. So far, I have not seen any other explanation for the "explosion" that fits. Have you?

There may be irresponsible researchers on both sides, but Gravy is not one of them. The very fact that this trivial point is what you are harping on, shows how sound his scenario is.

[GT/CS]

Red, since you don't have a reasonable alternative theory as to what caused the explosion have you heard any alternative theory from anyone that is reasonable, that you care to share with us? This is an intelligent group and they are always interested in listening to reasonable alternative theories.

[BenBurch]

If there were explosions in the basement before the aircraft strike, where are the radio logs of a box alarm to the site prior?

I've listened to the Manhattan Fire and EMS dispatch tapes, and there was no call for the site prior to the aircraft.

[Jonnyclueless]

I guess it's a big overly presumptuous to assume that a giant burning fireball traveling at super fast speeds down the elevator shafts, blowing out the heavy metals doors would case an explosion sound. It's probably more likely to create a sound more like a whoopy cushion right?

Obviously such an event would make no sound while useless explosives that would serve no purpose and leave no such recognizable damage or traces would.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I guess it's a big overly presumptuous to assume that a giant burning fireball traveling at super fast speeds down the elevator shafts, blowing out the heavy metals doors would case an explosion sound. It's probably more likely to create a sound more like a whoopy cushion right?

Obviously such an event would make no sound while useless explosives that would serve no purpose and leave no such recognizable damage or traces would.


Also, explosives below an observer cause a fireball to descend from a point above the observer. It's science, people!

[gumboot]

Every time I hear a conspiracy theorist talking about explosives and bombs I immediately just observe that said person has quite obviously never been anywhere near an actual high explosive detonation at any point in their entire life.

As someone on this forum so aptly put it, "loud noise" != "bomb"

-Gumboot

[LashL]

Let's call a spade a spade here.

Rodriguez is a liar and a fraud who has deliberately and knowingly embellished his story for his own benefit over the past few years in hopes of making a name for himself and in hopes of garnering a movie deal.

He's not much different than Sylvia Brown; he just has a different schtick.

[TjW]

Yeah, Rodriquez says it was diesel, so it must have been a semi-truck that hit the WTC! Maybe one of the ones stealing all the trillions in gold from the vault!

:dl:

Most likely not. No one said the towers falling sounded "like a diesel truck going by". No, many people said it sounded like "the rumbling of a train"*.
Trains are fueled by diesel. No trucks were seen leaving with the gold, but the subway station underneath the WTC was not available to the public immediately after the collapse. Trains are routinely used to carry heavy loads.
Do I need to connect all the dots for you?


*Not "the ramblings of A-Train". That would be something different.

[Gravy]

Certainly. Gravy does not assume that it was a jet fuel fireball, he concludes that it was. Most likely because it fits with all the other available evidence. Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. To the doubters, keep in mind that, as did all the other witnesses, Rodriguez heard and felt one explosion emanating from the basement, not several at different times. Edward McCabe (spelling left as is):
I was in the refrigeration plant in tower 1 sub basement 4. I was passing through when I felt a slight shifting of the building. I froze right where I stood and listened....nothing.. about 30 seconds past and to my left about 30 feet from me was a stairway leading up to a door. this door explodes off its hinges and white smoke came into the plant.

I later on found out the reason there was an explosion was the jet fuel filled the elevator shaft and seconds later a spark triggered an explosion. i stood at the bottom of this staircase wondering what happened. seconds later through the smoke came people who worked beyond that door for the construction company. they were all secrataries, they walked like zombies not speaking I can smell their burnt flesh. one was bleeding pretty bad and i started to walk her to path train station accross the plant. 1 woman seemed unharmed and i asked her what happened. she told me a bomb blew up their offices.

when we got to the PATH platform i layed the woman down, she thanked me, and i returned to the blown door to see if i could find anyone else. Sure enough there were more, the smoke was being sucked up the shaft now and i can see there were no longer any walls just rubble. 1 woman was under her desk refusing to come out. after a little coaxing she came and at this point a few of my colleuges, were sifting through the rubble, trying to find anybody. we did about 3 trips. everyone was out. I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative to the jet fuel scenario, that accounts for all the observations, from the conspiracy believers. I can't think of one.

[GT/CS]

Red, since you don't have a reasonable alternative theory as to what caused the explosion have you heard any alternative theory from anyone that is reasonable, that you care to share with us? This is an intelligent group and they are always interested in listening to reasonable alternative theories.

Red, you still out there? Oh I'm sorry, you must be still looking for that reasonable theory for us. Sorry to bother you. Keep working on it.

[Swing Dangler]

The big problem with your list of bs is if an explosive was used, there would be a dead William and dead people from concussions. You are missing the big picture, you may not have the experience as evidenced in your list. You must come up with the proof of explosives and you have failed for 6 years to come up with facts. When can we expect a breakthrough from 9/11 truth?

To nut, the problem is that is the logic and the facts needed to support a fireball from jet fuel. And guess what? You can't. Gravy can't. NIST can't. R Mackey can't. The 9/11 Com. can't.None of you bunks can.
How many times do I have to offer that challenge?
If that is truly what happened, the facts should support it easily, but alas, they don't! But you and your friends decide to choose an unfounded and unsupported theory.

ust as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. To the doubters, keep in mind that, as did all the other witnesses, Rodriguez heard and felt one explosion emanating from the basement, not several at different times. Edward McCabe (spelling left as is):I later on found out the reason there was an explosion was the jet fuel filled the elevator shaft and seconds later a spark triggered an explosion.

And I contend that William was later told the jet fuel excuse just like McCabe was and many others.

:big:

Yet you can't even offer the route the jet fuel took to get to the sub levels and B-4! You can't explain how people closest to the impact and over pressure survived while parts of the basement did not! Your entire paper is basically an entire hit piece on one man based upon an scientifically unproven illogical theory that can't be demonstrated by the facts. No wonder Willie ignores you as your attack piece is the only way to attack the alternative explanation that fits the facts and can only be proven false by chemical testing which was not done!

Yeah, Rodriquez says it was diesel, so it must have been a semi-truck that hit the WTC! Maybe one of the ones stealing all the trillions in gold from the vault!
Are you that clueless to realize the smell most likely came from the parking garage where apparently an explosive device or devices may have been located in a truck was used to destroy the garage among other things in the basement?
Are you so dense as to ignore the historical tactics of terrorists especially in relation to these buildings?
Are you such a believer that you refuse to trace the route the fireball took to cause the damage in the basement and still account for survivors?
Are you not the mathematician that can provide the overpressure data and fuel/air ratio that is needed to support this theory?

[Corsair 115]

To nut, the problem is that is the logic and the facts needed to support a fireball from jet fuel. And guess what? You can't. Gravy can't. NIST can't. R Mackey can't. The 9/11 Com. can't.None of you bunks can.The facts don't support planted explosives or thermite either.

[Mercutio]

Are you that clueless to realize the smell most likely came from the parking garage where apparently an explosive device or devices may have been located in a truck was used to destroy the garage among other things in the basement?

What sort of explosives would have had a characteristic fuel smell AND exhibit the sort of blast characteristics described by the witnesses? I do not know of any, but since you seem to think it obvious, you must have done your research on this point. (I won't bother yet to ask how it was choreographed with such precision to the arrival of the planes.)

[SDC]

...
Are you that clueless to realize the smell most likely came from the parking garage where apparently an explosive device or devices may have been located in a truck was used to destroy the garage among other things in the basement?
Are you so dense as to ignore the historical tactics of terrorists especially in relation to these buildings?


I cut a lot from that, in order to focus. (Focus, people, focus!) Let me say this:

First, I like the sentence which begins, "Are you..." We've got, "most likely," "apparently," and "may have been" in a single sentence! Like, heck; I love it! It's one of the best attempts to avoid making a positive, definite, declaration I've read in some time. Congratulations!

Second, the "historical tactics ... in relation to these buildings" clearly refers to 1993, when a bomb was placed in a truck in the garage... And it did very little damage. (A few people were killed and the garage was a mess. The buildings were fine.) After that they became more interested in airplanes since they realized that trucks weren't going to do it. No more Rent-a-Trucks!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Result of the 1993 WTC bombing: http://bilder.vgb.no/14097/img_467964039a4c2.jpg

It doesn't even look like any of the columns in the blast zone were severed.

And for about the hundredth time: If 9/11 was an inside job, what possible purpose would blowing up the garage (again) serve in a top-down collapse? You truthers need to think real hard about this one.

[RedIbis]

Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. To the doubters, keep in mind that, as did all the other witnesses, Rodriguez heard and felt one explosion emanating from the basement, not several at different times. Edward McCabe (spelling left as is):
I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative to the jet fuel scenario, that accounts for all the observations, from the conspiracy believers. I can't think of one.


Clarify something here. Is this McCabe speaking or is this Rodriguez speaking?

[Disbelief]

Are you that clueless to realize the smell most likely came from the parking garage where apparently an explosive device or devices may have been located in a truck was used to destroy the garage among other things in the basement?
Are you so dense as to ignore the historical tactics of terrorists especially in relation to these buildings?
Are you such a believer that you refuse to trace the route the fireball took to cause the damage in the basement and still account for survivors?
Are you not the mathematician that can provide the overpressure data and fuel/air ratio that is needed to support this theory?

So, they timed this explosion so closely to a plane hitting the building? How did they do that? Where were they? What type of device was used?

[Swing Dangler]

The facts don't support planted explosives or thermite either.

I suggest examining how the jet fuel/fireball/ got to the basement. And then you will completely understand why that theory must be rejected as the facts do not support such an event. I suspect this is why NIST chose not to support the event with science but only assumptions. However, an explosive device/devices would explain why the FBI used that as a working theory on that morning. It would account for the destroyed parking garage and PATH Level Plaza cave-in, it would explain why secretaries who were injured thought a bomb had went off in their office, it matches the description of damage in the basement, it explains why people nearest the impact survived the overpressure and blast but people and structures farthest away did not.

First, I like the sentence which begins, "Are you..." We've got, "most likely," "apparently," and "may have been" in a single sentence! Like, heck; I love it! It's one of the best attempts to avoid making a positive, definite, declaration I've read in some time.
I recognize and understand the verbiage you are attacking. However, the method of delivery is speculation which is why I used that language. On the other hand, I also notice your complete dodge of the points. Excellent.

You must come up with the proof of explosives and you have failed for 6 years to come up with facts. When can we expect a breakthrough from 9/11 truth?
You realize the only empirical evidence that would prove either way are the chemical tests of a large enough sample showing or not showing explosive residue. You are very aware there were no such tests done. Rejected.

[WildCat]

I suggest examining how the jet fuel/fireball/ got to the basement.
Gravity, or do you have evidence that gravity did not attract mass to the center of the earth on 9/11?

And then you will completely understand why that theory must be rejected as the facts do not support such an event.
So you reject the notion that gravity was in play on 9/11? :eye-poppi

I recognize and understand the verbiage you are attacking. However, the method of delivery is speculation which is why I used that language. On the other hand, I also notice your complete dodge of the points. Excellent.
What point was that? I didn't see one...

You realize the only empirical evidence that would prove either way are the chemical tests of a large enough sample showing or not showing explosive residue. You are very aware there were no such tests done. Rejected.
Amazing! You now demand a test under conditions such that it will be impossible to prove! You will just claim that the sample was not large enough when they invariably come back showing no explosive residue. Thank you for confirming that there is no evidence that will change your mind.

[SDC]

I recognize and understand the verbiage you are attacking. However, the method of delivery is speculation which is why I used that language. On the other hand, I also notice your complete dodge of the points. Excellent.


Cut a lot because this is the only bit which responded to my comments.

Listen, don't be modest! A little modesty is fine, sure, but you are blushing and simpering to excess. Let me clarify: it was a truly OUTSTANDING sentence in its TOTAL AVOIDANCE OF anything positive! Honest, you have nothing to be humble about. I wish I could write like that, but heck, I keep bringing up facts'n'stuff.

I wasn't addressing your points. I was so, well, swept away by your word choice. How do you expect me to keep a level head one I am confronted with what may be one of the greatest sentences I've ever read?

I remove my keyboard in awe. You are a Master.

[RedIbis]

Clarify something here. Is this McCabe speaking or is this Rodriguez speaking?

Would someone be kind enough to quote my post #303 otherwise, Gravy won't clarify this.

It's not clear from his quote whether this is McCabe or Rodriguez speaking.

[Disbelief]

Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. To the doubters, keep in mind that, as did all the other witnesses, Rodriguez heard and felt one explosion emanating from the basement, not several at different times. Edward McCabe (spelling left as is):
I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative to the jet fuel scenario, that accounts for all the observations, from the conspiracy believers. I can't think of one.

Clarify something here. Is this McCabe speaking or is this Rodriguez speaking?

Per request.

[RedIbis]

Per request.

Thanks, it's appreciated.

[Jonnyclueless]

Perhaps Swinger can provide us with those "facts" he speaks of which show how an explosive can cause a fireball to go down the elevator shafts. And perhaps my Dangle can show us the specific parts of the NIST report where they got this wrong.

And since the explosives claim requires no assumption, please show us the explosives used and the parts recovered from the bomb. What type of explosives wer they again? Remember, we want the facts, not assumptions.

[R.Mackey]

To nut, the problem is that is the logic and the facts needed to support a fireball from jet fuel. And guess what? You can't. Gravy can't. NIST can't. R Mackey can't. The 9/11 Com. can't.None of you bunks can.
How many times do I have to offer that challenge?

What are you talking about?

Yet you can't even offer the route the jet fuel took to get to the sub levels and B-4! You can't explain how people closest to the impact and over pressure survived while parts of the basement did not!

For at least the fourth time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2928358#post2928358): Elevator Shaft 50A.

And since the ignition point could well have been at the bottom of the shaft, there is no overpressure problem. Nobody assumes there was a single, continuous, 80-story fireball all the way from point of impact to basement.

Go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears again if you must. It's quite amusing.

[RedIbis]

Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. To the doubters, keep in mind that, as did all the other witnesses, Rodriguez heard and felt one explosion emanating from the basement, not several at different times. Edward McCabe (spelling left as is):


I figured this one out for myself. Despite the misleading description, the quote which followed was not Rodriguez but Edward McCabe.

It might have been helpful if Gravy said, "As Edward McCabe stated," or if he formed a complete sentence which would identify the speaker.

With that lead in and the lack of a verb after McCabe, the analysis is trying to give the impression that it's Rodriquez's words.

As for Rodriguez's actual quotes using the word "fireball," Gravy doesn't give us a link only the broad claim that it was said on television in 01 and 02. Ok, what TV show? When? Where? Where's the transcript?

I suspect this is just twisting the man's words to fit a pet theory.

I might also point out that even McCabe did not report seeing a jet fuel fireball, he was told that the explosion he witnessed was due to a jet fuel fireball. That's entirely different, but perhaps only a subtle and insignificant difference to some.

I'll bold to make my point:

I later on found out the reason there was an explosion was the jet fuel filled the elevator shaft and seconds later a spark triggered an explosion.

[Norseman]

And not to forget elevator shafts 6 and 7 that continued all the way down to B4. Even though the 6 and 7 elevators did not serve B2, B3 and B4 there was an access door on B4 according to the architectural drawings (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html). So go ahead and check it out Swing Dangler, it is on a truther site.

[Architect]

I figured this one out for myself. Despite the misleading description, the quote which followed was not Rodriguez but Edward McCabe.

It might have been helpful if Gravy said, "As Edward McCabe stated," or if he formed a complete sentence which would identify the speaker.

With that lead in and the lack of a verb after McCabe, the analysis is trying to give the impression that it's Rodriquez's words.


With respect, you're just plain wrong.

[RedIbis]

With respect, you're just plain wrong.

Wrong about what? You don't think Gravy was trying to tie Rodriguez with McCabe's comments?

I quoted McCabe. He didn't say he observed jet fuel, smelled it, or saw it rushing down the shafts. He said the explosion he witnessed, he was later told, was due to a jet fuel fireball.

Try to be more specific with your charges.

[Architect]

You're trying to read something into Gravy's comments that isn't there. If pedantry is your last weapon, then you're in trouble......

[SDC]

You're trying to read something into Gravy's comments that isn't there. If pedantry is your last weapon, then you're in trouble......

On behalf of pedants everywhere, I object to this comment. In fact, I'm... I'm... I'm going to be pedantic about it.

[RedIbis]

You're trying to read something into Gravy's comments that isn't there. If pedantry is your last weapon, then you're in trouble......

Call it what you want, but when the business here is character assassination, I'm going to ask for precision.

[Hellbound]

It isn't character assassination.

It's character autopsy.

[RedIbis]

It isn't character assassination.

It's character autopsy.

Turn your surgical knife on Gravy's paper and its flaws will be exposed.

[Hellbound]

Yes. But nothing that substantially alters the main point of the paper.

Rodriguez has substantially changed his story over time, in a manner and method that brings him more into the limelight. His current story is at odds with his earlier accounts. He is speaking falsly; the question is why.

[boloboffin]

And since the ignition point could well have been at the bottom of the shaft, there is no overpressure problem. Nobody assumes there was a single, continuous, 80-story fireball all the way from point of impact to basement.

I was just thinking - the fire from above died down after the initial explosion because all of the oxygen was consumed by the fireball above. Only as the oxygen from outside came back in did the fires above pick back up and became those infernos we all saw.

My question is this: Could there have been enough time in that sequence for jet fuel to get to the bottom of the shaft and then have been sparked off by the rekindling fires above?

[DavidJames]

Yes. But nothing that substantially alters the main point of the paper.Yes and that's a key point that Red, despite being asked repeatedly, refuses to address. Red seems to be only interested in scoring some feeble points.

[Dave Rogers]

My question is this: Could there have been enough time in that sequence for jet fuel to get to the bottom of the shaft and then have been sparked off by the rekindling fires above?

I think I suggested that last week.

I think RedIbis and Swing Dangler chose to ignore the question.

Dave

[RedIbis]

I think I suggested that last week.

I think RedIbis and Swing Dangler chose to ignore the question.

Dave

You "think" or you did? There is a quote function if you believe you addressed a question to me that I didn't answer.

[Dave Rogers]

You "think" or you did? There is a quote function if you believe you addressed a question to me that I didn't answer.

Post 77 in the thread, "Gravy Papers concerning Rodriguez: Split from: Loose Change vs. William Rodriguez " - follow the link below.

Just out of interest, is the following a possible scenario?

[scenario snipped for brevity - I don't want to spam the forum]

Any problems with that, anyone?

Dave

It wasn't specifically addressed to you, just a general question to the forum. I have no problem with you choosing to ignore it.

Dave

[Corsair 115]

IHowever, an explosive device/devices would explain why the FBI used that as a working theory on that morning. It would account for the destroyed parking garage and PATH Level Plaza cave-in, it would explain why secretaries who were injured thought a bomb had went off in their office, it matches the description of damage in the basement, it explains why people nearest the impact survived the overpressure and blast but people and structures farthest away did not. Now if you can just conclusively demonstrate that there is no other reasonable alternative to explosives, you're all set. At least in terms of supposition.

You're still lacking in the physical evidence department however.

[R.Mackey]

I was just thinking - the fire from above died down after the initial explosion because all of the oxygen was consumed by the fireball above. Only as the oxygen from outside came back in did the fires above pick back up and became those infernos we all saw.

My question is this: Could there have been enough time in that sequence for jet fuel to get to the bottom of the shaft and then have been sparked off by the rekindling fires above?

The quantities of jet fuel we're talking about are so vast that all kinds of strange scenarios are possible. For example, NIST describes a flare-up on the 104th floor of WTC 1 that didn't happen until WTC 2 collapsed, and surmises that it was due to collected, but unburnt, jet fuel vapors (see pg. 245 of NCSTAR1-5A and pg. 76 of NCSTAR1-5F). I have some questions about other possible explanations for this, but it's possible.

More likely than being sparked by the fires above, I'd suggest that a burning ember from the fires above could have followed the fuel down the elevator shaft. The ignition point was probably low in the structure.

My preferred scenario, again, is electrical ignition at or near the bottom of the shaft, caused by frayed wires or other damage resulting from the runaway elevator. This is speculation, of course. We will never know for sure. Nor does it matter. It would only matter if there were no plausible explanations, and in fact, there are many.

[Swing Dangler]

And since the ignition point could well have been at the bottom of the shaft, there is no overpressure problem. Nobody assumes there was a single, continuous, 80-story fireball all the way from point of impact to basement.


Ok, let me get this straight. The plane crashes, spills jet fuel all the way down Shaft 50 without it igniting into a fireball. Mr. Arturo whose elevator car's emergency breaks save his life experiences none of this jet fuel cascading down his shaft collecting in the bottom nor do anyone else in the basement witness or describe pools of jet fuel. This amount of jet fuel must have been fairly large to cause the amount of destruction witnessed in the basement levels.
Then the jet fuel ignites after everyone is out of the shafts, destroying the parking garage, causing a cave in at the Path Level Plaza, and other types of damage above the shaft. This same pool of fuel reminds many survivors of the 1993 truck bombing as well as make a group of secretaries think a bomb went off in their office.

A brief account of Arturo's experience and why your "pool of jet fuel" theory is simply ridiculous.

The husband, Arturo Griffith, operated WTC1 elevator Car 50, which USA Today further describes as, “the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor.”
[The Griffiths] were both operating elevators in the north tower on Sept. 11. Arturo was running 50A, the big freight car going from the six-level basement to the 108th floor. When American Airlines Flight 11 struck at 8:46 a.m., Arturo and a co-worker were heading from the second-level basement to the 49th floor. Like his wife, who had just closed the doors on a passenger elevator leaving the 78th floor, Arturo heard a sudden whistling sound and the impact. Cables were severed and Arturo's car plunged into free fall.
"The only thing I remember saying was 'Oh, God, Oh, God, I'm going to die,' " he says, recalling how he tried to protect his head as the car plummeted.
The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors. The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury.
There is a one-story discrepancy of this elevator’s range with Otis Elevator Company’s 1967 Bulletin article (six vs. five accessible basement levels), but it remains clear that the main freight elevator is indeed the elevator relevant to this article.
Though the door to Mr. Griffith’s elevator was knocked out when the safety brakes caught the free-falling elevator, there was no fuel-air explosion (FAE) down this elevator shaft.

Remember that such an event is hypothesized to have not only traveled hundreds of feet down this elevator shaft into the basement, but to have also caused major destruction in the basement levels of WTC1 as reported by Rodriguez, Pecoraro, Morelli, and their co-workers, including a destroyed basement machine shop, and blown-out, lower-level elevators accessing the lobby. But now the story has twisted into vast amounts of un-ignited jet fuel that traveled down a single shaft again without anyone noticing.


A full elevator had just left the 78th floor, and Carmen was about to carry up six or seven stragglers. The plane struck as the doors of her elevator closed. They could hear debris smash into the top of the car; then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in. Carmen jammed her fingers between the closed doors, pulled them partly open and held them as passengers clambered over and under her 5-foot-6 frame to escape.
Before finally throwing herself out onto the lobby floor, she glanced back to be sure the elevator was empty. That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck. Her hands were badly burned.

Note that Mrs. Griffith was not on the elevator that had access to the basement levels. Also note that, though she was burned, there was not a blast characteristic of an explosion that would cause such destruction as what was witnessed in the WTC1 basement levels, or else Mrs. Griffith surely would not have survived.

Car 6
The following excerpt comes again from NIST NCSTAR 1-7, page 34 (page 72 of the PDF file).
In addition to the passenger elevators, there were seven freight elevators in each tower; most served a particular zone, while Car 50 served every floor.
• Car #5: B1-5, 6, 9-40, 44
• Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 (Dual-use express, see below)
[…]
There were two express elevators (#6 and #7) to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2. There were five local elevators in each building: three that brought people from the subterranean levels to the lobby, one that ran between floors 106 and 110, and one that ran between floors 43 and 44, serving the cafeteria from the skylobby. All elevators had been upgraded to incorporate firefighter emergency operation requirements.
So we see that another elevator, Car 6, ran from the impacted floors of WTC1 to sublevel B1, but no further.

From page 122 of the same document (page 160 of the PDF file):
For an elevator’s cables to be cut and result in dropping the car to the bottom of the shaft, the cables would need to have been in the aircraft impact debris path, floors 93 through 98 in WTC 1 or floors 78 through 83 in WTC 2. Inspection of the elevator riser diagram and architectural floor plans for WTC 1 shows that the following elevators met these criteria: cars 81 through 86 (Bank B) and 87 through 92 (Bank C), local cars in Zone III; car 50, the freight elevator, and car 6, the Zone III shuttle. … Cars 6 and 50 could have fallen all the way to the pit in the sub-basement level, and car 50 in WTC 1 was reported to have done so.

Here, NIST states explicitly that elevator Car 6, along with Car 50, were the sole elevators of WTC1 with access to the basements from the impacted floors of WTC1. And as noted in the previous excerpt from NCSTAR 1-7, Car 6 only reached sub level B1, the uppermost basement level, while explosions and other destructive events were observed on B1 as well as below B1, on B2 and possibly lower (see the above testimonies of Rodriguez and Pecoraro).

Conclusions:
All of the above information should bring us to the logical conclusion that a fuel-air explosion did not travel hundreds of feet down the main freight elevator shaft of WTC1, from the impacted floors to the basements, to cause structural damage to the basement floors and lobby nor did vast amounts of jet fuel. Car 50 was the only elevator with access from the impacted floors of WTC1 to the sub levels B6 and below, and its operator survived, having experienced no explosions or fireballs down the main freight shaft.
That such a fireball could have traveled down Car 6 has not specifically been ruled out by the above information, but it could not have extended beyond sub level B1, whereas explosive events caused much destruction on lower floors including a cave in at the Path Level Plaza!

Also, considering an FAE traveling down this shaft sufficient in strength to destroy a machine shop in the basement levels (as per Pecoraro’s testimony), even if this elevator had access to this floor, and cause elevators servicing the lowest floors to blow out (as per Walsh’s testimony), as well as additional structure damage in the basements, it seems extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that the shaft itself, and neighboring floors all the way down would not be similarly destroyed by the massive over pressures accompanying this FAE down the building. Put simply, an FAE moving down an elevator shaft and causing severe damage in basement levels with massive force, could also be expected to destroy the shaft itself, especially since this shaft would be a very confined area, and its wall supposedly not reinforced by any concrete in the walls or etc.
The visible fuel-air explosions caused by the impacts visibly failed to destroy even the outer perimeter columns of the impacted floors, or to even remove their aluminum cladding, which was only fastened on and not solidly connected. Only the plane impacts themselves severed perimeter columns or caused such damage to the aluminum cladding. There is no evidence of great over pressures from the fireball itself if it traveled down the shafts either in the interior or exterior.
How, then, could a fireball that failed to remove this aluminum cladding in its immediate blast, travel down over a thousand feet of an unprotected elevator shaft and maintain sufficient over pressures to shatter concrete and steel fire doors, and cause a cave in at level B-4?
It has already been shown that the operator of elevator 50, the main freight, did not even experience a fireball, let alone life-threatening over-pressures, or vast amounts of jet fuel cascading down the shaft. This fits logically with the lack of exterior damage shown above.

But now, RMackey, you want us to believe that enough jet fuel bypassed all of these events, collected in a pool, and then ignited with enough force to cause the damage described? The time frame of course for the "jet fuel pool" theory is completely illogical with the eyewitness and survivor statements and the Jenny Carr audio record. The "Magic Jet Fuel Pool Ignited By An Ember" theory has now left the building.

More realistic explanations of the WTC1 basement events, including the use of secondary explosive devices, should be considered.

I suggest continuing your debunking efforts of a theologian, because your logic in this case is completely flawed and ignores the facts of the day, the elevator layout, survivor testimonies, scientific over pressure and fuel/air ratio data, as well as the historical tactics of terrorists.

[Swing Dangler]

Now if you can just conclusively demonstrate that there is no other reasonable alternative to explosives, you're all set. At least in terms of supposition.

You're still lacking in the physical evidence department however.

At first I thought jet fuel was a reasonable alternative, but after studying the issue, it is not reasonable in fact it is very unreasonable.
I do agree the physical evidence department is the largest issue of the theory, however, this would have been easily solved if chemical tests were done on a large enough sample to prove either way if explosives were used. You as well as I know this was not done, hence the theory remains the most valid theory to date and the most reasonable explanation as to what happened in the basement levels of the Towers.

[DGM]

Swing Dangler:
How did such a large incendiary device get planted under Willie's nose with out him knowing it. Surly someone in his position would know this was being brought in. He did know every inch of the building right?

[R.Mackey]

Ok, let me get this straight. The plane crashes, spills jet fuel all the way down Shaft 50 without it igniting into a fireball. Mr. Arturo whose elevator car's emergency breaks save his life experiences none of this jet fuel cascading down his shaft collecting in the bottom nor do anyone else in the basement witness or describe pools of jet fuel. This amount of jet fuel must have been fairly large to cause the amount of destruction witnessed in the basement levels. [...]

More realistic explanations of the WTC1 basement events, including the use of secondary explosive devices, should be considered.

I suggest continuing your debunking efforts of a theologian, because your logic in this case is completely flawed and ignores the facts of the day, the elevator layout, survivor testimonies, scientific over pressure and fuel/air ratio data, as well as the historical tactics of terrorists.


False choice fallacy.

Your opening statement describes what I think happened to create the fireball that Rodriguez reported. That doesn't mean there was only one. Do you have any idea of how much jet fuel total there was in the building?? Or how many paths there were from point of impact to the bottom?

Also, you have overestimated the energy expended in the machine shop and in the parking garage, quote-mining Mr. Pecoraro. When he says something is "gone," that doesn't mean it has totally vaporized or shattered. Damaged, yes. And that damage is not at all inconsistent with the amount of jet fuel we're discussing.

There is no evidence of secondary devices. There is no phenomenology consistent with detonations of any kind, anywhere in the structure, at any time. That's really all there is to say.

[Architect]

Call it what you want, but when the business here is character assassination, I'm going to ask for precision.


Havers. There is no basis to your claim that Gravy's quote sought to misrepresent its sources saving for your own interpretation.

[RedIbis]

Havers. There is no basis to your claim that Gravy's quote sought to misrepresent its sources saving for your own interpretation.

What's havers?

The rest is your opinion. These are only the first few examples that I'm raising. I was hoping that Gravy might have the humility to suspend his ignorance (I mean that in the literal sense since Gravy has me on ignore) to address these various claims in his paper.

Let's be realistic for a moment, it's not a scholarly article, it's not an example of investigative journalism, it's a personal rant that's not much more than an open letter. I've pointed out unsubstantiated claims, misrepresentation of quotations and a lack of logic in relation to the time necessary for the thesis to be valid.

Trust me, I'll keep going.

[Jonnyclueless]

So According to Swing, his theory is completely valid because he has no evidence. I geuss tha's one way to look at it....

Because no one has proven Santa doesn't exist means it's only logical to assume he does and that he was behind 9/11. had someone bothered to test for Santa Claus at the WTC, we could have ruled that out, but since that isn't the case, I am left to assume Santa was behind the plot. And now to ignore all the rest of the evidence...

[Mobyseven]

//Transmission Begins//

Alpha-Team Report

Stardate: 30.12.3020

Location: JREF Mexaplex; CT Division; Bunker 12A

//Signing on: Mobyseven; T.A.M.; Qarnos

Timestamp: 2034

Mobyseven: T.A.M., Qarnos, can you hear me?

T.A.M.: Affirmative.

Qarnos: Affirmative, Mobyseven. Looks like no one has been here for centuries.

T.A.M.: Agreed. This bunker is dead, nothing to look at here.

Mobyseven: Nothing living. Might find something to salvage though. Spread out and search for anything that might be valuable. Meet back at the entrance at 2100.

T.A.M.: Roger that.

-Break Transmission-

Timestamp: 2049

Qarnos: I think I've struck paydirt.

T.A.M.: What have you found?

Qarnos: Looks like an antique ceramic bird...worn and faded, a dull rusty colour now, but we could give it to Father Darat to restore. I'll run a diagnostic on it.

Mobyseven: Be careful. We have to make sure we don't bring foreign pathogens out of this hellhole with us.

Qarnos: Roger that, I'm scanning now...what the hell?

T.A.M.: What is it?

Qarnos: This bird isn't ceramic. It's organic, and according to my analysis it's...

RedIbis: Graagh! Misrepresentation! Out of context!

Qarnos: Emergency, Alpha-Team! He's trying to pick nits off me! He's going to break through my containment su...<white noise>

//Signed off: Quarnos

T.A.M.: Oh, blast and rule eight.

Mobyseven: Best return to the entrance. We'll regroup and send in a rescue mission.

-Break Transmission-

Timestamp: 2100

Architect: Donna step there, lad. Ye donna ken whatcha doin'!

T.A.M.: What? Who's there?

Architect: Jes' me, the old Architect. Step there an' you'll regret it, lad. This den has booby traps comin' out its arse.

T.A.M.: What are you doing down here?

Architect: I guard the sacred relics hidden in this bunker. The Gravy Papers.

T.A.M.: The Gravy Papers? I thought they were a myth!

Architect: Aye, seems what ye ken could nay fill a bucket, lad. Follow me to the dungeons, but fer Wallace's sake, watch out for the Swing Dangler!

T.A.M.: The 'Swing Dangler'? Is that some kind of booby trap?

Architect: Aye, lad! Watch yer head, feredssake!

//Signed off: T.A.M.

Architect: Ach. They ne'er listen to me.

-Break Transmission-

Timestamp: 2120

Mobyseven: Alpha-Team report: Two casualties, missing, presumed dead. A rescue effort would likely result in more casualties, and is therefore advised against. Recommendation is to permanently lock Bunker 12A...how it continues to support life, let alone intelligent conversation, is beyond my understanding. Mobyseven, signing out.

//Signed off: Mobyseven

//Transmission Ends//

[Gravy]

Architect: Aye, lad! Watch yer head, feredssake!
:D

[Hyperviolet]

//Transmission Begins//

Alpha-Team Report

Stardate: 30.12.3020

Location: JREF Mexaplex; CT Division; Bunker 12A

//Signing on: Mobyseven; T.A.M.; Qarnos

Timestamp: 2034

Mobyseven: T.A.M., Qarnos, can you hear me?

T.A.M.: Affirmative.

Qarnos: Affirmative, Mobyseven. Looks like no one has been here for centuries.

T.A.M.: Agreed. This bunker is dead, nothing to look at here.

Mobyseven: Nothing living. Might find something to salvage though. Spread out and search for anything that might be valuable. Meet back at the entrance at 2100.

T.A.M.: Roger that.

-Break Transmission-

Timestamp: 2049

Qarnos: I think I've struck paydirt.

T.A.M.: What have you found?

Qarnos: Looks like an antique ceramic bird...worn and faded, a dull rusty colour now, but we could give it to Father Darat to restore. I'll run a diagnostic on it.

Mobyseven: Be careful. We have to make sure we don't bring foreign pathogens out of this hellhole with us.

Qarnos: Roger that, I'm scanning now...what the hell?

T.A.M.: What is it?

Qarnos: This bird isn't ceramic. It's organic, and according to my analysis it's...

RedIbis: Graagh! Misrepresentation! Out of context!

Qarnos: Emergency, Alpha-Team! He's trying to pick nits off me! He's going to break through my containment su...<white noise>

//Signed off: Quarnos

T.A.M.: Oh, blast and rule eight.

Mobyseven: Best return to the entrance. We'll regroup and send in a rescue mission.

-Break Transmission-

Timestamp: 2100

Architect: Donna step there, lad. Ye donna ken whatcha doin'!

T.A.M.: What? Who's there?

Architect: Jes' me, the old Architect. Step there an' you'll regret it, lad. This den has booby traps comin' out its arse.

T.A.M.: What are you doing down here?

Architect: I guard the sacred relics hidden in this bunker. The Gravy Papers.

T.A.M.: The Gravy Papers? I thought they were a myth!

Architect: Aye, seems what ye ken could nay fill a bucket, lad. Follow me to the dungeons, but fer Wallace's sake, watch out for the Swing Dangler!

T.A.M.: The 'Swing Dangler'? Is that some kind of booby trap?

Architect: Aye, lad! Watch yer head, feredssake!

//Signed off: T.A.M.

Architect: Ach. They ne'er listen to me.

-Break Transmission-

Timestamp: 2120

Mobyseven: Alpha-Team report: Two casualties, missing, presumed dead. A rescue effort would likely result in more casualties, and is therefore advised against. Recommendation is to permanently lock Bunker 12A...how it continues to support life, let alone intelligent conversation, is beyond my understanding. Mobyseven, signing out.

//Signed off: Mobyseven

//Transmission Ends//



Hahahahaha, what a great post.

[LashL]

:dl:

Priceless, moby, priceless.

[RedIbis]

Wow, some folks have some serious time on their hands. The nerd chills are thick.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Wow, some folks have some serious time on their hands. The nerd chills are thick.


Creativity just comes easily to some people. What a shame! :rolleyes:

[LashL]

Wow, some folks have some serious time on their hands. The nerd chills are thick.

Wow, some people have well-honed senses of humour. Gee, why am I not surprised that this is alien to you?

[BenBurch]

My preferred scenario, again, is electrical ignition at or near the bottom of the shaft, caused by frayed wires or other damage resulting from the runaway elevator. This is speculation, of course. We will never know for sure. Nor does it matter. It would only matter if there were no plausible explanations, and in fact, there are many.

Are elevator door relays required to be sparkproof?

[Gravy]

Are elevator door relays required to be sparkproof?I don't see why they would be, nor do I see why it matters. There were ample sources of ignition that could have come from the many floors of fire above.

[jhunter1163]

@ Mobyseven: Nominated.

[gumboot]

Wow, some folks have some serious time on their hands. The nerd chills are thick.


I doubt that took moby very long to write.

-Gumboot

[Dave Rogers]

A few observations here.

Ok, let me get this straight. The plane crashes, spills jet fuel all the way down Shaft 50 without it igniting into a fireball. Mr. Arturo whose elevator car's emergency breaks save his life experiences none of this jet fuel cascading down his shaft collecting in the bottom nor do anyone else in the basement witness or describe pools of jet fuel.

If he was in the elevator car, and the jet fuel went round its outside, what would he notice? If the jet fuel collected in the elevator shaft wells, who would be there to observe it?

A full elevator had just left the 78th floor, and Carmen was about to carry up six or seven stragglers. The plane struck as the doors of her elevator closed. They could hear debris smash into the top of the car; then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in. Carmen jammed her fingers between the closed doors, pulled them partly open and held them as passengers clambered over and under her 5-foot-6 frame to escape.
Before finally throwing herself out onto the lobby floor, she glanced back to be sure the elevator was empty. That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck. Her hands were badly burned.

This sounds like evidence for further ignition events a significant time after the impact - how long did it take for the passengers to escape and Carmen to "finally" get out herself? Clearly there was at least one fireball some time after the elevator was damaged, which is consistent with fuel pooling and subsequently igniting.

Note that Mrs. Griffith was not on the elevator that had access to the basement levels. Also note that, though she was burned, there was not a blast characteristic of an explosion that would cause such destruction as what was witnessed in the WTC1 basement levels, or else Mrs. Griffith surely would not have survived.

This is consistent with different pools of jet fuel igniting at different times and with different intensities.

It has already been shown that the operator of elevator 50, the main freight, did not even experience a fireball, let alone life-threatening over-pressures, or vast amounts of jet fuel cascading down the shaft.

Putting aside the blatantly misleading use of the word "vast", the latter point has not even been addressed, let alone disproved.

Dave

[JonnyFive]

Wow, some folks have some serious time on their hands. The nerd chills are thick.

"Nerd chills?"

[Horatius]

"Nerd chills?"



It's the chill you get when you realize you have a nerd on your tail. It's kind of like the chill you get when you're bombing down the highway, well over the speed limit, and then look in the rearview mirror and see a cop car sitting on your bumper. You know you're toast, no matter what you do.....

[Swing Dangler]

False choice fallacy.

Your opening statement describes what I think happened to create the fireball that Rodriguez reported. That doesn't mean there was only one. Do you have any idea of how much jet fuel total there was in the building?? Or how many paths there were from point of impact to the bottom?

Also, you have overestimated the energy expended in the machine shop and in the parking garage, quote-mining Mr. Pecoraro. When he says something is "gone," that doesn't mean it has totally vaporized or shattered. Damaged, yes. And that damage is not at all inconsistent with the amount of jet fuel we're discussing.

There is no evidence of secondary devices. There is no phenomenology consistent with detonations of any kind, anywhere in the structure, at any time. That's really all there is to say.

LOL. I'm not convinced you understand the definition of false choice. I've never stated there are only two choices. What I have stated is the empirical method supports the use of an explosive device or devices. The evidence is the amount of destruction described by survivors and the failed explanation for a fireball/delayed jet fuel pool explosion.

So According to Swing, his theory is completely valid because he has no evidence. I geuss tha's one way to look at it....
No because it can easily be proven or disproven through chemical testing. You could also focus on the points disproving the fireball/ "Jet Fuel Pool" theory.

If he was in the elevator car, and the jet fuel went round its outside, what would he notice? If the jet fuel collected in the elevator shaft wells, who would be there to observe it?
If you recall, there are accounts of the sprinkler system turning on and the amount of water witnessed cascading into the shafts. I would expect the same behavior from the amount of jet fuel necessary to cause the damage witnessed.

This sounds like evidence for further ignition events a significant time after the impact - how long did it take for the passengers to escape and Carmen to "finally" get out herself? Clearly there was at least one fireball some time after the elevator was damaged, which is consistent with fuel pooling and subsequently igniting.
She escaped very quickly hence she is still alive. Two, there is no evidence of further jet fuel ignition. Third, her survival brings into question the over pressure damage closest to impact versus the over pressure needed to cause the destruction witnessed in the basement levels.

This is consistent with different pools of jet fuel igniting at different times and with different intensities.
Now the "Jet Fuel Pool Theory" has become the "Multiple Jet Fuel Pool Theory"?
Can you please explain to me the source for multiple jet fuel pools and their subsequent ignition?

It has already been shown that the operator of elevator 50, the main freight, did not even experience a fireball, let alone life-threatening over-pressures, or vast amounts of jet fuel cascading down the shaft.
Putting aside the blatantly misleading use of the word "vast", the latter point has not even been addressed, let alone disproved.

Vast is misleading? Please tell us how much jet fuel is required to destroy a parking garage, cause a cave in at the Path Level Plaza, destroy a machine shop, etc? Oh and what kind of over pressure data do you have on jet fuel to support this destruction?

[chillzero]

Posts split to Humour:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95012

[JonnyFive]

It's the chill you get when you realize you have a nerd on your tail. It's kind of like the chill you get when you're bombing down the highway, well over the speed limit, and then look in the rearview mirror and see a cop car sitting on your bumper. You know you're toast, no matter what you do.....

Is the nerd in question armed with some kind of death ray?

[Horatius]

Aren't all nerds armed with a Death Ray?

[JonnyFive]

Aren't all nerds armed with a Death Ray?

True, true.

I suppose I can see why RedIbis would be concerned, then... what, with dustification and all.

[Darat]

On reflection we've moved the humorous posts back, but please don't de-rail the thread any further.

[Mobyseven]

Wow, some folks have some serious time on their hands. The nerd chills are thick.

Apologies that I have free time during the day, then. I'll set the alarm for 4pm, that should give me time for the self-flagellation I'll need to inflict to atone for the heinous crime of only having to leave for the theatre at 5pm.



...back to your endless discussion of a paper that the truthers haven't actually read, then...

[Architect]

On reflection we've moved the humorous posts back, but please don't de-rail the thread any further.


Ach, but I was still chucklin' at the humour of DeidIbis nae kennin' whit "havers" meant!

Come on, Chillzero, you must have thought the same thing! Tha seo 's'math sinn!

[Dave Rogers]

A full elevator had just left the 78th floor, and Carmen was about to carry up six or seven stragglers. The plane struck as the doors of her elevator closed. They could hear debris smash into the top of the car; then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in. Carmen jammed her fingers between the closed doors, pulled them partly open and held them as passengers clambered over and under her 5-foot-6 frame to escape.
Before finally throwing herself out onto the lobby floor, she glanced back to be sure the elevator was empty. That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck. Her hands were badly burned.

An afterthought on this one: She held the doors open, the elevator passengers climbed over her, she got out of the elevator herself, she glanced back, and then she got burned? How come she didn't get burned while everyone was climbing over her, unless there was a fireball that was delayed until some time after the elevator jammed? There were multiple escapes from the lift in which she didn't get burned, yet she was right where the fire was that burned her after she got out. Sounds like very clear evidence for a delayed ignition.

Dave

[PhantomWolf]

then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in.

Fireball #1 associated with crash

That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck.

Fireball #2 delayed from fuel igniting after crash

Don't you hate it when your own quote proves you wrong.....

[Gravy]

Fireball #1 associated with crash

Fireball #2 delayed from fuel igniting after crash

Don't you hate it when your own quote proves you wrong.....Nothing but exotic high explosives could have produced this effect. It bears all the signs of Double-Delay Super Hushaboomtm.

[GT/CS]

Nothing but exotic high explosives could have produced this effect. It bears all the signs of Double-Delay Super Hushaboomtm.

Oh no. It looks like Gravy will soon be getting a visit a certain cat for exposing that secret.

[FatesWebb]

Yes and that's a key point that Red, despite being asked repeatedly, refuses to address. Red seems to be only interested in scoring some feeble points.

whoa, uh the word pedantic meaning, overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, is not accurate in describing Reds calling out of the claim that Rodriguez said that he saw fireballs.

here was Gravies statement...

"Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. "

This is FALSE, and cannot be backed up with any facts. Rodriguez has never said anything of the sort. EVER! and if you feel he has, I dare you to provide proof of it. I will even bet you money. It did not happen. EVER! Since supposedly he said it on TV, then it would not be to hard to prove? would it?

This is not "nitpicking" it is calling gravy on a lie. A flat out lie. now you attack Red's character saying he is nitpicking, but the fact is he is showing the lies of the author of the article for which the topic was created. instead of actually debating the article, you have resorted to attacking RedIbis. This is a logical fallacy, and proves that RedIbis is winning the debate. Since he has stuck to the facts, and not to logical fallacies.

[DGM]

whoa, uh the word pedantic meaning, overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, is not accurate in describing Reds calling out of the claim that Rodriguez said that he saw fireballs.

here was Gravies statement...

"Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. "

This is FALSE, and cannot be backed up with any facts. Rodriguez has never said anything of the sort. EVER! and if you feel he has, I dare you to provide proof of it. I will even bet you money. It did not happen. EVER! Since supposedly he said it on TV, then it would not be to hard to prove? would it?

This is not "nitpicking" it is calling gravy on a lie. A flat out lie. now you attack Red's character saying he is nitpicking, but the fact is he is showing the lies of the author of the article for which the topic was created. instead of actually debating the article, you have resorted to attacking RedIbis. This is a logical fallacy, and proves that RedIbis is winning the debate. Since he has stuck to the facts, and not to logical fallacies.
CNN transcript.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html

And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance. And I came back running into the building.

Somebody's lied but I don't think it was Gravy

[RedIbis]

CNN transcript.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html



Somebody's lied but I don't think it was Gravy


Sure about that? Where in that quote does Rodriguez say it was a jet fuel fire ball?

That's been the point all along.

[PhantomWolf]

Sure about that? Where in that quote does Rodriguez say it was a jet fuel fire ball?

That's been the point all along.

What else could have caused a fireball that burned but didn't kill by the blast?

Before you say explosives, watch the video below and compare to the fireball and the compression waves.

wjW7srAvtSY

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Sure about that? Where in that quote does Rodriguez say it was a jet fuel fire ball?

That's been the point all along.


What else could produce a ball of fire? Certainly not explosives...

Well, maybe Hollywood explosives... And I hear Hollywood is run by Jews... Hmm...

No, seriously. Process of elimination. What else could it be?

[Gravy]

Rodriguez statement to NIST (http://911stories.googlepages.com/rodriguezstatementtonist):

"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."


Rodriguez: "It is a well known fact that I was believing the government official story early on." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65aflt8XlIk)

Rodriguez: “From day one, I have told the same story, never straying from the truth." (http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/34323.htm)

Oops.

[DavidJames]

whoa, uh the word pedantic meaning, overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, is not accurate in describing Reds calling out of the claim that Rodriguez said that he saw fireballs.

here was Gravies statement...

"Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. "

This is FALSE, and cannot be backed up with any facts. Rodriguez has never said anything of the sort. EVER! and if you feel he has, I dare you to provide proof of it. I will even bet you money. It did not happen. EVER! Since supposedly he said it on TV, then it would not be to hard to prove? would it?

This is not "nitpicking" it is calling gravy on a lie. A flat out lie. now you attack Red's character saying he is nitpicking, but the fact is he is showing the lies of the author of the article for which the topic was created. instead of actually debating the article, you have resorted to attacking RedIbis. This is a logical fallacy, and proves that RedIbis is winning the debate. Since he has stuck to the facts, and not to logical fallacies.CNN transcript.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html
Somebody's lied but I don't think it was Gravy
Rodriguez statement to NIST (http://911stories.googlepages.com/rodriguezstatementtonist):

Rodriguez: "It is a well known fact that I was believing the government official story early on." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65aflt8XlIk)

Rodriguez: “From day one, I have told the same story, never straying from the truth." (http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/34323.htm)

Oops.I'm guessing you will disappear again for awhile.

[JimBenArm]

I'm guessing you will disappear again for awhile.
We can hope.

[RedIbis]

Rodriguez statement to NIST (http://911stories.googlepages.com/rodriguezstatementtonist):




Rodriguez: "It is a well known fact that I was believing the government official story early on." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65aflt8XlIk)

Rodriguez: “From day one, I have told the same story, never straying from the truth." (http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/34323.htm)

Oops.

Your analysis is often lacking and you try to prove your point by association or assumption.

These two quotes do not contradict each other. "The government story" that Rodriguez admits to accepting (as any of us did) never included Rodriguez's personal experience, which Rodriguez has not had to change.

Secondly, not a single quote that you've pulled, nor any one attributed to Rodriguez here, includes the phrase "jet fuel fire ball" that you falsely suggest he is reporting.

Let me say here, since several people are making the same assumption, you are concluding that Rodriguez witnessed jet fuel, but he didn't describe it that way, and you have no evidence that's what created it.

With all of the material in the tower, the generators, and other equipment, do you really seriously think there is no other possibility?

Sounds like someone came to a conclusion and then developed a seemingly plausible explanation, which is an interesting theory, but you can stop claiming that Rodriguez ever reported a "jet fuel fireball."

[Mercutio]

Sounds like someone came to a conclusion and then developed a seemingly plausible explanation, which is an interesting theory, but you can stop claiming that Rodriguez ever reported a "jet fuel fireball."

But it's so much easier than typing "reported a fireball that is completely consistent with jet fuel, which we know was present in abundance, and utterly incompatible with any conventional explosives, for which there is no evidence anyway, but let's not get carried away, 'cos if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes good in orange sauce, it might still be a wankel rotary engine."

[DGM]

Your analysis is often lacking and you try to prove your point by association or assumption.

These two quotes do not contradict each other. "The government story" that Rodriguez admits to accepting (as any of us did) never included Rodriguez's personal experience, which Rodriguez has not had to change.

Secondly, not a single quote that you've pulled, nor any one attributed to Rodriguez here, includes the phrase "jet fuel fire ball" that you falsely suggest he is reporting.

Let me say here, since several people are making the same assumption, you are concluding that Rodriguez witnessed jet fuel, but he didn't describe it that way, and you have no evidence that's what created it.

With all of the material in the tower, the generators, and other equipment, do you really seriously think there is no other possibility?

Sounds like someone came to a conclusion and then developed a seemingly plausible explanation, which is an interesting theory, but you can stop claiming that Rodriguez ever reported a "jet fuel fireball."
Would you mind pointing out in Gravy's paper that he says Willie said that (or claims). I can't seem to find where Gravy lies.

[RedIbis]

Would you mind pointing out in Gravy's paper that he says Willie said that (or claims). I can't seem to find where Gravy lies.

Check post #281.

[DGM]

Check post #281.
Post #281 does not show a lie or miss-quote. Please show me this in Gravy's paper. Remember you(or Fates) said that Gravy's lied.

[pomeroo]

Your analysis is often lacking and you try to prove your point by association or assumption.

These two quotes do not contradict each other. "The government story" that Rodriguez admits to accepting (as any of us did) never included Rodriguez's personal experience, which Rodriguez has not had to change.

Secondly, not a single quote that you've pulled, nor any one attributed to Rodriguez here, includes the phrase "jet fuel fire ball" that you falsely suggest he is reporting.

Let me say here, since several people are making the same assumption, you are concluding that Rodriguez witnessed jet fuel, but he didn't describe it that way, and you have no evidence that's what created it.

With all of the material in the tower, the generators, and other equipment, do you really seriously think there is no other possibility?

Sounds like someone came to a conclusion and then developed a seemingly plausible explanation, which is an interesting theory, but you can stop claiming that Rodriguez ever reported a "jet fuel fireball."



I think it's high time you gave us a reason to believe that the fireball could something other than a jet-fuel fireball.

[RedIbis]

I think it's high time you gave us a reason to believe that the fireball could something other than a jet-fuel fireball.

It's high time to stop putting words in Rodriguez's mouth.

[WildCat]

It's high time to stop putting words in Rodriguez's mouth.
Explain what kind of explosive produces a ball of fire that you can get close enough to cause burns but somehow won't blow you to smithereens. Can you do that RedIbis? If not, why on earth would you not believe it was from the jet fuel present in large quantities from the plane? Are you a no-planer now?

[Hellbound]

Explain what kind of explosive produces a ball of fire that you can get close enough to cause burns but somehow won't blow you to smithereens. Can you do that RedIbis? If not, why on earth would you not believe it was from the jet fuel present in large quantities from the plane? Are you a no-planer now?

Wildcat:

Actually, A nuke would do. Much higher heat-to-energy ratio than conventional explosives.

But that type of explosive would have been rather, erm, obvious if used (contrary to some troother beliefs).

[pomeroo]

It's high time to stop putting words in Rodriguez's mouth.


Evasion noted. If you can't suggest a plausible way for the fireballs to be caused by something other than the jet fuel, then you don't have much of a case.

[RedIbis]

Evasion noted. If you can't suggest a plausible way for the fireballs to be caused by something other than the jet fuel, then you don't have much of a case.

I'm not debating the source of the fireball that Rodriguez reported. I'm criticizing the method that Gravy used to reach his questionable conclusion.

I'll repeat, Rodriguez never uses the phrase "jet fuel fireball" no matter how many different ways Gravy attempts to present it that way.

You guys have found a pet theory you are comfortable with. I am not promoting any theory.

I just find it anti-skeptical and anti-scientific to rigidly adhere to the jet fuel, magic fireball theory, and decide that there are no other possibilities.

[Disbelief]

I'm not debating the source of the fireball that Rodriguez reported. I'm criticizing the method that Gravy used to reach his questionable conclusion.

I'll repeat, Rodriguez never uses the phrase "jet fuel fireball" no matter how many different ways Gravy attempts to present it that way.

You guys have found a pet theory you are comfortable with. I am not promoting any theory.

I just find it anti-skeptical and anti-scientific to rigidly adhere to the jet fuel, magic fireball theory, and decide that there are no other possibilities.

Al people seem to be asking is, "What are these other possibilities?" You keep alluding to them like they are right there in front of our eyes, but they are rejected. Do you have anything plausible?

[Mercutio]

I just find it anti-skeptical and anti-scientific to rigidly adhere to the jet fuel, magic fireball theory, and decide that there are no other possibilities.

Two questions:

1) Is the evidence consistent with a jet-fuel fireball? (yes or no)

2) Is the evidence consistent with conventional explosives? (yes or no)

ok, a third question-- Why do you think the jet fuel fireball requires "magic"?

[Gravy]

But it's so much easier than typing "reported a fireball that is completely consistent with jet fuel, which we know was present in abundance, and utterly incompatible with any conventional explosives, for which there is no evidence anyway, but let's not get carried away, 'cos if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes good in orange sauce, it might still be a wankel rotary engine."It's more than that, really. Rodriguez tells us that he initially accepted the official version of events, and he repeatedly tells us what the official version of the basement explosion is. We know that he repeated that version as his understanding of the facts, including to NIST in a public venue in 2004. I've seen no evidence that Rodriguez made any claims of bombs in the basement and no fireball in the elevator shaft before 2005. Those claims do not appear in his 2004 lawsuit. Additionally, he tells us why he began to speak out: not because any new evidence came to light, but because he was angry at the 9/11 Commission.

If someone wrote a paper about me that contained gross errors and misrepresentations, I would make sure that those were corrected or retracted. Rodriguez cannot refute these points, since they are his own statements.

He could do the honorable thing and stop claiming that a vast inside job conspiracy put bombs in the north tower basement. Instead, he seems intent on continuing to dig a hole for himself by hobnobbing with people like anti-Semitic fascist wannabe Kevin Barrett, and by using his celebrity to spread falsehoods about 9/11.

His actions are indefensible, in my opinion.

[Swing Dangler]

Two questions:

1) Is the evidence consistent with a jet-fuel fireball? (yes or no) No. Why? No one can trace the route the jet fuel fireball took to the basement levels and still account for the survival of Arturo Griffith and company. No one has placed on a map or diagram the location of the basement survivors in relation to all of this jet fuel. No one witnessed jet fuel streaming down the shafts. No one can explain how people and parts of the structure survived the overpressure nearest to impact, but areas farthest away did not. No one can explain how the elevator shafts and the facade survived the fireball but areas of the basement did not. No one has provided any calculations determining the fuel/air ratio, nor the over pressure data required to account for the destruction. The smell of kerosene could be easily attributed to diesel fuel from destroyed vehicles in the parking garage. No one can attribute the sound event to jet fuel as recorded by Jenny Carr.

2) Is the evidence consistent with conventional explosives? (yes or no)Yes. Why? The historical record and tactics of a terrorist. The description of the destruction from the event itself, ie. destroyed parking garage, machine shop, cave in at the Path Level plaza, lack of carbon rich smoke, witness descriptions of further damage, injury to the witnesses, audio event on Jenny Carr's video, working hypothesis of the FBI, the event reminded many survivors of the 1993 bombing. As soon as scientific tests are done on a large enough sample showing no explosive residues, conventional explosives fit the events more accurately than the jet fuel fireball/jet fuel pool- theory.

[Mobyseven]

The dumb hurts my brain.

[gumboot]

No. Why? No one can trace the route the jet fuel fireball took to the basement levels and still account for the survival of Arturo Griffith and company.


Why do you keep insisting the fireball traveled down to the basement levels?




No one witnessed jet fuel streaming down the shafts.


How on earth would anyone in the building be in a position to witness this?




No one can explain how people and parts of the structure survived the overpressure nearest to impact, but areas farthest away did not.


Why do you keep talking about overpressure? You do realise that a fuel fire ball does not have high overpressure, yes? Do you even know what overpressure is?





The smell of kerosene could be easily attributed to diesel fuel from destroyed vehicles in the parking garage.


Except that the smell of kerosene (which smells nothing like diesel, by the way) was reported consistently immediately after impact all the way through the building. So unless burning diesel-powered cars were covertly placed throughout the towers prior to impact, you really have nothing here.




injury to the witnesses


It's interesting that you mention this. One of the most vivid, and one of the only consistent elements of Mr Rodriguez's account is the injuries he witnessed - skin hanging off arms and such things.

These accounts are, for me, the primary piece of evidence proving the damage was caused by jet fuel. The injuries described are called "flash burns". They're the tell-tale sign of burns from a fuel fireball. They're very unique, very horrible, and actually not as serious as they sound. The top layers of skin are totally burned, and often strip away when touched, but the skin underneath is usually okay. Any Vietnam War veteran who ever witnessed victims of a napalm attack know it well.

The same wounds were described at the Pentagon. They are 100% consistent with a jet fuel fireball. They are 100% inconsistent with a high explosive detonation. Simply put, skin cannot be burned off a person by a high explosive, because the blast wave extends well beyond the high heat area. Thus anyone close enough to the blast to suffer burns will be blown into pieces.

Conclusion? Whatever injured those people in the basement was a fuel fireball, not an explosion.

-Gumboot

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No. Why? No one can trace the route the jet fuel fireball took to the basement levels and still account for the survival of Arturo Griffith and company.


So you disagree with Rodriguez's account of the event?

Yes. Why? The historical record and tactics of a terrorist. The description of the destruction from the event itself, ie. destroyed parking garage, machine shop, cave in at the Path Level plaza, lack of carbon rich smoke, witness descriptions of further damage, injury to the witnesses, audio event on Jenny Carr's video, working hypothesis of the FBI, the event reminded many survivors of the 1993 bombing. As soon as scientific tests are done on a large enough sample showing no explosive residues, conventional explosives fit the events more accurately than the jet fuel fireball/jet fuel pool- theory.


What the...? You've already forgotten the fireball? What conventional explosive creates a fireball, Swing Dangler?

What conventional explosive in the basement of a building causes a fireball to come down an elevator shaft?

(Feel free to answer these questions, too, RedIbis.)

[RedIbis]

Instead, he seems intent on continuing to dig a hole for himself by hobnobbing with people like anti-Semitic fascist wannabe Kevin Barrett, and by using his celebrity to spread falsehoods about 9/11.



You seem to want to accuse Rodriguez of guilt by association.

First of all, isn't Barrett part of MUJCA, and you know what the J stands for, right? Or are you conflating criticisms of Israeli military practices with anti-semitism?

Secondly, if you are going to accuse Rodriguez of associating with anti-semites in a poor attempt at character assassination, why don't you report on his work with Jewish agencies after 9/11?

[Arus808]

I noticed that Red Ibis has ignored Gravy's proof and only answered posts after his Grayv's answers showing that rodriguez had lied. Why is that?

[RedIbis]

I noticed that Red Ibis has ignored Gravy's proof and only answered posts after his Grayv's answers showing that rodriguez had lied. Why is that?

I would attempt to answer the questions if I could make any sense at all out of it.

What proof are you vaguely referring to?

[Arus808]

now you're dodging, as it has been clarified by Gravy and by other posters.

He has proved through Rodriguez's own testimony that he has lied.
So please, point out where in Gravy's paper where Gravy's has misquoted him, when he's using HIS exact testimony?

[RedIbis]

now you're dodging, as it has been clarified by Gravy and by other posters.

He has proved through Rodriguez's own testimony that he has lied.
So please, point out where in Gravy's paper where Gravy's has misquoted him, when he's using HIS exact testimony?

No, he has not proven where Gravy has lied.

I've pointed out, since this thread and the other Gravy paper thread were started, several places where Gravy misrepresents Rodriguez's testimony.

Go back and check #281 again. Gravy reads "jet fuel fireball" when Rodriguez used the word "explosion."

[Disbelief]

No, he has not proven where Gravy has lied.

I've pointed out, since this thread and the other Gravy paper thread were started, several places where Gravy misrepresents Rodriguez's testimony.

Go back and check #281 again. Gravy reads "jet fuel fireball" when Rodriguez used the word "explosion."

I saw Rodriguez use "ball of fire." Where does he say explosion?

[Unfit4Command]

No. Why? No one can trace the route the jet fuel fireball took to the basement levels and still account for the survival of Arturo Griffith and company. No one has placed on a map or diagram the location of the basement survivors in relation to all of this jet fuel. No one witnessed jet fuel streaming down the shafts. No one can explain how people and parts of the structure survived the overpressure nearest to impact, but areas farthest away did not. No one can explain how the elevator shafts and the facade survived the fireball but areas of the basement did not. No one has provided any calculations determining the fuel/air ratio, nor the over pressure data required to account for the destruction. The smell of kerosene could be easily attributed to diesel fuel from destroyed vehicles in the parking garage. No one can attribute the sound event to jet fuel as recorded by Jenny Carr.

Yes. Why? The historical record and tactics of a terrorist. The description of the destruction from the event itself, ie. destroyed parking garage, machine shop, cave in at the Path Level plaza, lack of carbon rich smoke, witness descriptions of further damage, injury to the witnesses, audio event on Jenny Carr's video, working hypothesis of the FBI, the event reminded many survivors of the 1993 bombing. As soon as scientific tests are done on a large enough sample showing no explosive residues, conventional explosives fit the events more accurately than the jet fuel fireball/jet fuel pool- theory.

Could you please give the route at which explosives were carried into the building and planted on the steel? If not, then it didn't happen.

Also, no one can explain why no one in the building reported seeing people ripping out walls and planting the explosives. No one reports seeing any of these strange devices either...or why the bomb sniffing dogs didn't find them.

Explain how this happened, if you can't, it didn't happen! :)

The jet fuel fireball theory makes the most sense. When the planes impacted the building several people reported fireballs shooting down the shafts as well as a strong smell of kerosene, even on the lower levels.

Firefighter Peter Blaich:
As we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didnt recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. Thats when Lieutenant Foti said oh, thats the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if youre camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.

The same thing happened to the elevators in the main lobby. They were basically blown out. I dont recall if I actually saw people in there. What got me initially in the lobby was that as soon as we went in, all the windows were blown out, and there were one or two burning cars outside. And there were burn victims on the street there, walking around. We walked through this giant blown-out window into the lobby.

There was a lady there screaming that she didnt know how she got burnt. She was just in the lobby and then next thing she knew she was on fire. She was burnt bad. And somebody came over with a fire extinguisher and was putting water on her.

Thats the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. Im assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table, I guess at some type of checkpoint.” http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/blaich.html

``I saw a couple of elevators in free fall; you could hear them whizzing down and as they crashed, there was this huge explosion, like a fireball exploding out of the bank of elevators,'' Kravette said. ``People were engulfed in flames.'' http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/CantorFitzgerald.html

“As he waited for orders, Meldrum, the chauffeur (Fire engine driver), noticed that all windows in the high lobby were blown out. Glass and marble from busted walls littered the floors, crunched underfoot. He caught an occasional whiff of jet fuel, a smell like kerosene, wafting from elevator shafts. On the floor by the elevators he saw burned people.” http://www.projo.com/words/st20021016.htm

“ For those of you who may not know the story, she was entering the lobby of the North Tower of the World Trade Center when a fireball exploded from the elevator shaft. She and two others managed to run out of the building, all three of them on fire. A passerby across the street ran to them, reaching Lauren first, and put the flames out. He then put Lauren in an ambulance, so she was the first person evacuated. He certainly saved her life.” http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780553896930&view=excerpt

"When I walked out into the lobby, it was incredible," he recalled. "The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls. 20-foot section of marble, 20 by 10 foot sections of marble, gone from the walls".

The west windows were all gone. They were missing. These are tremendous windows. They were just gone. Broken glass everywhere, the revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone. Every sprinkler head was going off. I am thinking to myself, how are these sprinkler heads going off? It takes a lot of heat to set off a sprinkler head. It never dawned on me that there was a giant fireball that came through the air of the lobby. I never knew that until later on. The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby.” http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

Many more similar testimonies are in Gravy's paper.

I don't understand why you want people to explain the path of the fireball. What's hard to explain? The plane hit, elevator cables were severed and damaged, elevators began to crash, and the fireball followed the elevators. Some people were lucky enough to escape the elevators before being engulfed in the flames, that left an "overpowering smell of kerosene" inside charred elevators, "a smell like kerosene, wafting from elevator shafts," and left burned people, not people blown apart like what high powered explosives would do.

[RedIbis]

No, he has not proven where Gravy has lied.

I've pointed out, since this thread and the other Gravy paper thread were started, several places where Gravy misrepresents Rodriguez's testimony.

Go back and check #281 again. Gravy reads "jet fuel fireball" when Rodriguez used the word "explosion."

I made a stupid error here. I mean Rodriguez in the first sentence.

Is there a time limit on editing? I don't have that function. It was hours earlier.

[RedIbis]

I saw Rodriguez use "ball of fire." Where does he say explosion?

In the very same post, read it again.

'When the explosion happened in the basement there was fire all over, and this guy tried to cover his face… '” (Video: William Rodriguez An American Hero. 2005, Snowshoe Films)

[Mr. Skinny]

I made a stupid error here. I mean Rodriguez in the first sentence.

Is there a time limit on editing? I don't have that function. It was hours earlier.
I think the time limit on editing is something like 15 minutes to 30 minutes.. Early on in the forum history we had people who were being dishonest and editing threads after they had been challenged on a statement they had made, so a time limit seemed reasonable.

We even had people go back and entirely delete OP's...

[RedIbis]

I think the time limit on editing is something like 15 minutes to 30 minutes.. Early on in the forum history we had people who were being dishonest and editing threads after they had been challenged on a statement they had made, so a time limit seemed reasonable.

We even had people go back and entirely delete OP's...

Thanks for the info. It's understandable that the edit function would be time sensitive for those reasons.

One thing I'm sure we can all relate to is the quick post at work and then looking back at it hours later and realizing you made a simple error.

[Mr. Skinny]

Thanks for the info. It's understandable that the edit function would be time sensitive for those reasons.

One thing I'm sure we can all relate to is the quick post at work and then looking back at it hours later and realizing you made a simple error.
Sure, I can relate.

I sometimes read the Straight Dope Message Board, and they just began allowing editing for the first time this year. Needless to say, they had lots of follow on posts just to correct spelling mistakes and the like.

I think a limited editing period is reasonable here.

Glad I could help.

[Gravy]

I think the time limit on editing is something like 15 minutes to 30 minutes.. It's 2 hours.

[Crungy]

It's more than that, really. Rodriguez tells us that he initially accepted the official version of events, and he repeatedly tells us what the official version of the basement explosion is. We know that he repeated that version as his understanding of the facts, including to NIST in a public venue in 2004. I've seen no evidence that Rodriguez made any claims of bombs in the basement and no fireball in the elevator shaft before 2005. Those claims do not appear in his 2004 lawsuit. Additionally, he tells us why he began to speak out: not because any new evidence came to light, but because he was angry at the 9/11 Commission.

If someone wrote a paper about me that contained gross errors and misrepresentations, I would make sure that those were corrected or retracted. Rodriguez cannot refute these points, since they are his own statements.


Bump for RedIbis. He seems to have missed this very important bit. Why, for several years did Willie agree with the official report? Why did Willie only change his story when he got pissed off at the 9/11 Commission?

[RedIbis]

It's 2 hours.

Thanks, that's helpful, but it would be more helpful if you'd address the questions I asked earlier in the thread:

First of all, isn't Barrett part of MUJCA, and you know what the J stands for, right? Or are you conflating criticisms of Israeli military practices with anti-semitism?

Secondly, if you are going to accuse Rodriguez of associating with anti-semites in a poor attempt at character assassination, why don't you report on his work with Jewish agencies after 9/11?

[LashL]

This is on topic in the sense that it is about Rodriguez and how his ever-changing, ever more self-aggrandizing story has evolved and changed over time, but it is not strictly on point to the current sub-discussion. I am loath to another thread unnecessarily, though, so I thought I would post this here. If others think that it should be a separate thread, I'll ask that it be split.

I think that this subject was touched upon briefly in another thread several months ago, but I've been thinking about it in light of Rodriguez' various versions of events and I thought I would put this out in the form of a question:

What would be a reasonable estimate of time for the following to occur:

- Hear loud sound while on the B1 level of the north tower

- React to the sound, begin to interact with co-workers

- Observe walls cracking and ceilings falling down

- Hear and react to co-workers screaming

- Observe a badly burned man arrive at your office from the B2 level (presumably he did not
arrive by elevator but by stairs, in the circumstances)

- React to the badly burned man arriving at your office

- Hear and react to another loud sound while about to pick up a telephone to call EMS

- Observe the building oscillating and walls cracking again

- Observe co-workers moving to stand beneath door frames, expressing the view that it’s an earthquake

- Respond to co-workers, exclaiming, “No, I think it’s a bomb!” and “We gotta’ get out.”

- Co-ordinate evacuation of those in the immediate vicinity

- Carry the badly burned man out of the office on your back, through the B1 level, through the loading dock, up to ground level, and out of the building until you see and stop an ambulance (consider how long it took for the first ambulances to arrive upon the scene after the first plane impact)

- Deposit the badly burned man into the ambulance

- Observe the badly burned man go into a coma

- Listen to the radio of a security guard and a report that an airplane hit the building

- Stand at the base of the building, look up and observe the hole where the plane entered

- Argue with a supervisor about whether or not to return to the building

- Take the radio from the security guard

- Return to the basement (B1) of the north tower and observe water “all over”

- Run to the OCC in the basement of the south tower (consider the distance between the two locations)

- Bang on the windows of the OCC in the south tower

- Observe that there is nobody in the OCC in the south tower

- Observe a man in the basement of the south tower and scream at him to get out

- Go to an entrance of the Marriott Hotel and observe a female employee standing at a podium

- Have a short conversation with her and then push her out

- Run back to the north tower again (B1) (consider the distance between the two locations)

- Find a man who worked for a recycling company

- Have a conversation with him about him hearing screams

- Put your ear to an elevator and hear people screaming that they are going to drown

- Ascertain that they are in an elevator stuck between levels B2 and B3

- Look around and find a metal pipe

- Put the pipe between the elevator doors and with the help of the man from the recycling company, open the door (which opens vertically rather than horizontally)

- Observe water rushing into the elevator shaft and rising higher on the people trapped inside the elevator between B2 and B3

- Recall that there may be ladders in the loading dock area

- Go to the loading dock area and locate a ladder

- Return to the elevator carrying the ladder on your back

- Drop the ladder into the elevator shaft

- Climb down into the shaft

- Open the grid (presumably this is the rooftop of the elevator car)

- Rescue the two people in the elevator below (considering that the elevator was stopped between B2 and B3, this would presumably entail dropping the ladder into the elevator to allow the two passengers to climb up the ladder to the roof of the elevator car, and then hoisting the ladder back up to the roof of the elevator car and setting it up on the roof of the elevator car in order to climb back up to B1)

- Take the two passengers upstairs to ground level and out of the building

- Put these two people into an ambulance

- Return to the north tower again

- Go down to the basement (B1) again

- Locate another individual in the basement

- Go up to the lobby

- Climb up 50+ flights of stairs to the 27th storey, bumping into people who are their way down because the stairways are narrow

- Have a conversation about where to locate water on that floor

- Go to the “other side” of that floor

- Observe a PA officer break into a vending machine to retrieve bottles of water

- Locate trash cans to carry the bottles of water

- Return to the previous location on the 27th floor

- Find an office with a working telephone

- Make a phone call to Puerto Rico and speak to your mother

- Have a conversation with your supervisor over the radio

- Continue up the stairs another ~10 flights to the 33rd floor

- Go to a supply closet to retrieve dust masks

- Locate a woman lying on the floor

- Have a brief conversation with the woman

- Stand the woman up, take her to the stairwell, speak to others who are coming down from higher floors in the stairwell to ensure that she goes with them

- Make note of noises on the 34th floor above and make a conscious decision not to enter that floor

- Continue up the stairs (in a different stairwell) another ~12 flights to the 39th floor

- Hear another loud sound

- Turn around and head back down the stairs


I'll stop there for now, but will note that Rodriguez claims to have done all of the foregoing between the time the first plane hit the north tower and the time the second plane hit the south tower (which is a span of 17 minutes).

Yes, 17 minutes.

I think that this is impossible, and I think that it indicates serious errors in Rodriguez's assumptions, suppositions, and assertions. (Note that I used the word "errors" and not "lies", because, frankly, I would be surprised if he didn't make mistakes about the events, but since he's telling - and selling - his story as "factual", I think it's worthwhile to explore the errors.)

So, what do you think? What is your reasonable estimate of time for all of the foregoing to occur?

[Gravy]

I don't think this is a fair characterization, LashL. Rodriguez didn't state a specific number of minutes in which those events took place. He stated that they happened before flight 175 hit the south tower. His main error, IMO, is not knowing when the south tower was struck. It's bizarre that he didn't take the time to think about his own story, but I don't get the sense that he was trying to fool anyone. It's such an obvious error to anyone who knows when the events happened.

One thing to stress in that chronology is another obvious, and truly bizarre error he makes: that he believed another loud sound he heard on the 39th floor was 21 floors of the tower collapsing and coming to rest five stories above him.

[LashL]

I don't think this is a fair characterization, LashL. Rodriguez didn't state a specific number of minutes in which those events took place. He stated that they happened before flight 175 hit the south tower. His main error, IMO, is not knowing when the south tower was struck. It's bizarre that he didn't take the time to think about his own story, but I don't get the sense that he was trying to fool anyone. It's such an obvious error to anyone who knows when the events happened.

One thing to stress in that chronology is another obvious, and truly bizarre error he makes: that he believed another loud sound he heard on the 39th floor was 21 floors of the tower collapsing and coming to rest five stories above him.

I do not think it is a mischaracterization. Rodriguez claims to have done all of these things between the time the first plane hit the north tower and the time the second plane hit the south tower, which was a span of 17 minutes.

That said, I see your point as it might relate to my choice of wording. I did not intend to mischaracterize Rodriguez's claims in any way, so perhaps I should not have written that he "claims to have done all of the foregoing in 17 minutes" but rather that he "claims to have done all of the foregoing between the time the first plane hit the north tower and the time the second plane hit the south tower (which is 17 minutes)". When I was writing it, it did not occur to me that it would be construed to mean he actually timed it and actually said those words, but in retrospect, I can see how it could be interpreted that way.

I'll fix that.

On the second point, while Rodriguez's story may be an "obvious error" to those of us who know the details and who give a damn about accuracy, I don't think it is at all obvious to twoofers (who won't bother themselves with such minor details as reality) or to the loons Rodriguez panders to on his speaking gigs in the U.S. and other countries; thus I think it's worth setting out in detail to make it clear.

As to your final point, yes, I agree that Rodriguez's claim about a 21 storey collapse above him is a bizarre (and wholly unsubstantiated) claim but it wasn't really relevant to the timing issue, which was my point, since for the purposes of timing, it included only hearing (and misinterpreting) a message of a few seconds duration on a radio. I agree that it is significant as to the veracity of his stories overall and certainly as to his inability to properly interpret what he claims to have heard, but it doesn't strike me as particularly significant to the timing issue.

[Disbelief]

I saw Rodriguez use "ball of fire." Where does he say explosion?

In the very same post, read it again.

'When the explosion happened in the basement there was fire all over, and this guy tried to cover his face… '” (Video: William Rodriguez An American Hero. 2005, Snowshoe Films)

So, now you agree that Rodriguez did change his story? In the CNN transcript, he never uses the word explosion but he does say "ball of fire."