PDA

View Full Version : New Debunk Alert: WTC Operations Mgr Confirms Rodriguez Story


RedIbis
11th October 2007, 04:41 PM
I don't know if he's a Holocaust denier but his story confirms Rodriguez's story, and Saltalamacia reports up to at least 10 explosions throughout the building, "like grenades", "different explosions."

Listen to the end, he is completely skeptical of the official story.

And before it comes up, why people here think it's surprising that these stories come out years later, just put yourself in his position, knowing the enormous s[rule8]storm that inevitably follows telling a story that destroys the official myth.

http://911blogger.com/node/11949

Arkan_Wolfshade
11th October 2007, 04:51 PM
. . .

And before it comes up, why people here think it's surprising that these stories come out years later, just put yourself in his position, knowing the enormous s[rule8]storm that inevitably follows telling a story that destroys the official myth.

http://911blogger.com/node/11949
Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

T.A.M.
11th October 2007, 04:52 PM
and he could tell they were grenades (or explosives), based on what...he is an explosives expert with enough skill to distinguish I suppose...lol

TAM:)

T.A.M.
11th October 2007, 04:56 PM
I like the cuts (dissolves) between different parts of the story. I guess we are suppose to take the editors word for it that the recollections within each piece dissolved together are contiguous.

TAM:)

NYCEMT86
11th October 2007, 05:00 PM
and he could tell they were grenades (or explosives), based on what...he is an explosives expert with enough skill to distinguish I suppose...lol

TAM:)

TAM, didn't you get the memo on how the NWO screwed up and put in explosives that would sound like the word "GRENADE" or "EXPLOSIVES" instead of a bang...though we are still baffled on the whole thermite issue it kept making sounds like "JONES" or it could have been "JOOS" :rolleyes:

RedIbis
11th October 2007, 05:01 PM
Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

How very pedantic of you. I know the logical fallacies. I also know that it takes enormous courage for someone to put himself into the public reporting an account such as this.

If you need proof that any dissenting voice to the official narrative will be met with character assassination, you won't have to look far at all.

MarkyX
11th October 2007, 05:04 PM
So 6 years later, he finally supports William? Why not then? What does he think of William's first edition of the story, which he didn't mention explosions but "rumbling" ?

And why so many massive cuts in the interview?

RedIbis
11th October 2007, 05:05 PM
I like the cuts (dissolves) between different parts of the story. I guess we are suppose to take the editors word for it that the recollections within each piece dissolved together are contiguous.

TAM:)

Saltalamacia's estimation of at least ten explosions throughout bldg is not edited out.

DGM
11th October 2007, 05:05 PM
Anthony Saltalamacia was with Rodriguez in the basement. For the first time after 6 years, they meet and his recollection is taped. This is part of the upcoming video by Mr. Rodriguez.

I don't need to see any more. I want to know how they knew the exact moment the plane hit when they were in the basement.

Good Lt
11th October 2007, 05:06 PM
I also know that it takes enormous courage for someone to put himself into the public reporting an account such as this.

That's right. Because the margin of error in an operations manager proclaiming hearing "different explosions" - not knowing if they were in fact explosions or the differneces in types of sounds of "different explosions," or if they sounded "like grenades" (assuming he knows what grenades sound like) - is pretty slim.

http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40

T.A.M.
11th October 2007, 05:07 PM
"...The amount of explosives I've heard, uh, from 8:46 to the time I got out was oh, so many, was at least 10. It was just like multiple explosions, to where I felt there was like different grenades, thats thats what it sounded LIKE, It was just different grenades being set off in the building. It was like, there was one major explosion, and then there was a, different explosions through out that period of time...."


Where does he EVER, within, imply the use of explosives. The closest I can see to that is expression of what the explosions sounded LIKE...grenades.

TAM:)

Crungy
11th October 2007, 05:08 PM
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 who ignored this post in the other Willie thread.

T.A.M.
11th October 2007, 05:08 PM
How very pedantic of you. I know the logical fallacies. I also know that it takes enormous courage for someone to put himself into the public reporting an account such as this.

If you need proof that any dissenting voice to the official narrative will be met with character assassination, you won't have to look far at all.

I believe every word of the quote I posted above from him. I am sure he was courageous, and I appreciate his retelling the story, but where is this man accusing anyone of anything?????

Stop grandstanding.

TAM:)

gumboot
11th October 2007, 05:09 PM
I don't think anyone here disputes that there were many very loud sharp noises inside the towers, which sounded a lot like explosions.

-Gumboot

vexed
11th October 2007, 05:13 PM
Testimonials, the best form of evidence...

BenBurch
11th October 2007, 05:20 PM
How very pedantic of you. I know the logical fallacies. I also know that it takes enormous courage for someone to put himself into the public reporting an account such as this.

If you need proof that any dissenting voice to the official narrative will be met with character assassination, you won't have to look far at all.

It's not COURAGE, its LARCENY. The preponderance of evidence at this time means we can regard this story as yet another attempt to either fleece a credulous audience or to garner personal attention. At this point in time I cannot imagine this person to be innocently mistaken at all.

T.A.M.
11th October 2007, 05:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzbQjd_Oo4Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYUmdqQ94Ao&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF5HuO-2Ci0&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QpVk3NPjyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwvgfQHpJYU
(goto 2:35 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B_48tSfb78&mode=related&search=

There are so many more....

TAM:)

BenBurch
11th October 2007, 05:22 PM
So 6 years later, he finally supports William? Why not then? What does he think of William's first edition of the story, which he didn't mention explosions but "rumbling" ?...

And the Rumbling became an explosion that nearly trapped him in his office! As though anybody could have forgotten that at the first telling.

William Rodriguez is a very sad little man who has to lie to the "Truth" community to make himself important.

Lying for truth is like screwing for virginity.

Good Lt
11th October 2007, 05:24 PM
where is this man accusing anyone of anything?????

That's where the CT's come in!

boloboffin
11th October 2007, 05:30 PM
Explosions != explosives.

1337m4n
11th October 2007, 05:47 PM
And before it comes up, why people here think it's surprising that these stories come out years later, just put yourself in his position, knowing the enormous s[rule8]storm that inevitably follows telling a story that destroys the official myth.


Except...there's nothing in this testimony that deliberately implicates the government in any way. So there's nothing "courageous" about giving it.

LashL
11th October 2007, 06:07 PM
Is this fellow one of the alleged witnesses whose story Rodriguez was trying to negotiate the price of with Dylan Avery?

Redtail
11th October 2007, 06:15 PM
How very pedantic of you. I know the logical fallacies. I also know that it takes enormous courage for someone to put himself into the public reporting an account such as this.

If you need proof that any dissenting voice to the official narrative will be met with character assassination, you won't have to look far at all.

And I also know it takes an enormous amount of courage to organize 1,000 people for a demonstration and/or march at Ground Zero and/or DC, but to be fair, the truthers would need 1,000 people first.

Now then, how does this destroy the official report? I don't recall any of the official reports saying there were no explosions.

SDC
11th October 2007, 06:16 PM
Where does he EVER, within, imply the use of explosives. The closest I can see to that is expression of what the explosions sounded LIKE...grenades.

TAM:)

Didn't the LC guys learn their lesson about "similes" earlier this year, thanks to the BBC? That appears to be what the fellow is using.

(And at last I can say something I've wanted to say for months: it's SIMILE, not SIMILIE, and I'll request in triplicate that the next person who misspells the former like the latter be tased. But a kinder, gentler tasing. Like.)

LashL
11th October 2007, 06:42 PM
And before it comes up, why people here think it's surprising that these stories come out years later, just put yourself in his position, knowing the enormous s[rule8]storm that inevitably follows telling a story that destroys the official myth.

Except that there is nothing in his story that contradicts the "official" story, let alone "destroys" it.

On the other hand, there are parts of his story that contradict Rodriguez's story, but those could easily be attributed to the same disconnects, mis-remembering, and post hoc erroneous "filling in the blanks" that inevitably occurs with witnesses to sudden and traumatic events.

And then, of course, there is the little issue of whether or not this fellow's story is one of the stories that Rodriguez has been trying to sell. Do you know whether it is or not?

Good Lt
11th October 2007, 07:10 PM
Where'd RedIbis go?

Too hot in the kitchen?

pomeroo
11th October 2007, 07:22 PM
I don't know if he's a Holocaust denier but his story confirms Rodriguez's story, and Saltalamacia reports up to at least 10 explosions throughout the building, "like grenades", "different explosions."

Listen to the end, he is completely skeptical of the official story.

And before it comes up, why people here think it's surprising that these stories come out years later, just put yourself in his position, knowing the enormous s[rule8]storm that inevitably follows telling a story that destroys the official myth.

http://911blogger.com/node/11949



According to conspiracy liars, any account at odds with the established narrative must be correct. If the explosions sounded like grenades to the new hero, then they must have been, literally, grenades. Otherwise, as has been pointed out already, he merely reports hearing explosions. Nobody doubts that he heard explosions as--listen carefully--things were exploding.

Are you now prepared to insist that your imaginary, mathematically impossible conspiracy used grenades to bring down the Twin Towers. Will that be the latest evolution in the fantasist position?

Don't disappear on us again. Inquiring minds want to know.

JEROME DA GNOME
11th October 2007, 07:29 PM
So 6 years later, he finally supports William? Why not then? What does he think of William's first edition of the story, which he didn't mention explosions but "rumbling" ?

And why so many massive cuts in the interview?


You sound like a troofer.

But why?
But why?
But why?

Are you connecting dots?

Arkan_Wolfshade
11th October 2007, 07:37 PM
How very pedantic of you. I know the logical fallacies. Then stop committing them.

I also know that it takes enormous courage for someone to put himself into the public reporting an account such as this.
Like this appeal to emotion.

If you need proof that any dissenting voice to the official narrative will be met with character assassination, you won't have to look far at all.And this sweeping generalization.

RedIbis
11th October 2007, 07:48 PM
According to conspiracy liars, any account at odds with the established narrative must be correct. If the explosions sounded like grenades to the new hero, then they must have been, literally, grenades. Otherwise, as has been pointed out already, he merely reports hearing explosions. Nobody doubts that he heard explosions as--listen carefully--things were exploding.

Are you now prepared to insist that your imaginary, mathematically impossible conspiracy used grenades to bring down the Twin Towers. Will that be the latest evolution in the fantasist position?

Don't disappear on us again. Inquiring minds want to know.

Allow me to cherry pick.

First, Sal. is describing the sounds he heard. When witnesses to a shooting crime, people often compare the sound to firecrackers. That's not to say they think they were firecrackers. He's not an explosives expert and used sounds he was familiar with to describe what he heard. He's describing the repetitive nature of the explosions he heard.

Secondly, I don't have endless hours to reply to every post on here. I started the thread, I won't abandon it. You can be sure of that.

The word is that this is just a short clip of longer interviews. Sal. is quite clear that he doubts the official narrative even at the end of this clip. It appears most people didn't watch the video to the end.

beachnut
11th October 2007, 08:11 PM
I don't know if he's a Holocaust denier but his story confirms Rodriguez's story, and Saltalamacia reports up to at least 10 explosions throughout the building, "like grenades", "different explosions."

Listen to the end, he is completely skeptical of the official story.

And before it comes up, why people here think it's surprising that these stories come out years later, just put yourself in his position, knowing the enormous s[rule8]storm that inevitably follows telling a story that destroys the official myth.

http://911blogger.com/node/11949 (http://911blogger.com/node/11949[/quote) Where are the dead people from the grenade blasts? OH, you said sounds like, not really the same is it. Darn another BS post about BS by people who heard loud noises that never produced the blast effects of Explosions. Why are there no blast effects from the sound like grenades and 10 explosions? Why?

T.A.M.
11th October 2007, 08:39 PM
The word is that this is just a short clip of longer interviews. Sal. is quite clear that he doubts the official narrative even at the end of this clip. It appears most people didn't watch the video to the end.

Too bad he has been influenced by the snake oil salesmen then. If he thinks the Towers were brought down by CD then he has been grossly misled by someone, so my condolences go out to his common sense.

TAM:)

MarkyX
11th October 2007, 08:39 PM
You sound like a troofer.

But why?
But why?
But why?

Are you connecting dots?

You aren't very sharp, are you?

JEROME DA GNOME
11th October 2007, 08:44 PM
You aren't very sharp, are you?

Like a tack.

Are you implying that you were attempting to preform a mockery?

Why the implied insult towards me?

T.A.M.
11th October 2007, 08:46 PM
how does one "preform" a mockery?

Where was the "implied" insult, I didn't see anything implied?

TAM:)

jsfisher
11th October 2007, 08:50 PM
Testimonials, the best form of evidence...

Hey, don't be knocking testimonials. They work for Ron Popeil, now don't they, and that annoying guy that sells that Oxy stuff.

JEROME DA GNOME
11th October 2007, 08:56 PM
how does one "preform" a mockery?

Where was the "implied" insult, I didn't see anything implied?

TAM:)

http://www.m-w.com/

Here is where you can look up the words. If you put words together they create a coherent thought called a sentence.



What is with the hostility in this thread?

Is there a membership ritual for this thread I am unaware of?:confused:

jsfisher
11th October 2007, 09:00 PM
Is there a membership ritual for this thread I am unaware of?:confused:


At 92 posts, JEROME DA GNOME, a belated welcome.

No, there is no ritual, but you will find everyone here is fairly unique in posting style and confrontational potential -- usually based on topic. Enjoy the variety.

Slayhamlet
11th October 2007, 09:03 PM
http://www.m-w.com/

Here is where you can look up the words. If you put words together they create a coherent thought called a sentence.



What is with the hostility in this thread?

Is there a membership ritual for this thread I am unaware of?:confused:

Erm, you started with the hostility, and you expect others not to bite back?

T.A.M.
11th October 2007, 09:08 PM
http://www.m-w.com/

Here is where you can look up the words. If you put words together they create a coherent thought called a sentence.



What is with the hostility in this thread?

Is there a membership ritual for this thread I am unaware of?:confused:

I was indirectly, in a jovial way, asking if you really meant the word "preform" as opposed to "perform".

I saw no "implied" insult in Markyx's comments, so I was asking for clarification.

Trust me, I was NOT being hostile, but if you wish me to be I can.

TAM:)

Blender Head
11th October 2007, 09:11 PM
So the collapse of the Towers were an unconventional top-down controlled demolition which utilized experimental thermite cutting charges and blowing out of the basement?

Whoever said the government wasn't redundant?

JEROME DA GNOME
11th October 2007, 09:11 PM
Erm, you started with the hostility, and you expect others not to bite back?


I said that the post sounded like a troofer.

He implied that he was mocking troofers.

He should have been pleased that his mockery came across.

The only reason he would have taken it as hostile would be that he was not making a mock and was upset at me for pointing out that he sounded like a troofer.

Either way, my post was not any in way meant to be taken with hostility.

The reasonable reaction under such a circumstance of confusion would be to ask.

T.A.M.
11th October 2007, 09:13 PM
SO did you really mean to use the word "preform" as opposed to "perform"? That was the essence of my comment. Its not that important, but seeing how you felt the need to reply to me with condescending sarcasm, I'd like to know.

TAM:)

JEROME DA GNOME
11th October 2007, 09:14 PM
So the collapse of the Towers were an unconventional top-down controlled demolition which utilized experimental thermite cutting charges and blowing out of the basement?

Whoever said the government wasn't redundant?


You forgot about the grenades.

JEROME DA GNOME
11th October 2007, 09:18 PM
SO did you really mean to use the word "preform" as opposed to "perform"? That was the essence of my comment. Its not that important, but seeing how you felt the need to reply to me with condescending sarcasm, I'd like to know.

TAM:)

Yes, preform.

preform: to form or shape beforehand

As in not an accidental mockery. Asking if he had created the mockery intentionally.

cyclonic
11th October 2007, 09:39 PM
do fire extinguishers explode when subjected to intense heat?

BenBurch
11th October 2007, 09:44 PM
do fire extinguishers explode when subjected to intense heat?

They are designed so as to make that unlikely. But there are a lot of other things that explode in ordinary office building fires.

Mel Odious
11th October 2007, 10:07 PM
Okay, let me see if I have this straight. We have explosives detonating in the twin towers before the planes hit, while the planes hit, after the planes hit, at numerous times afterwards until the collapses, thermite/thermate melting the steel support structure at the 80th floor of WTC2 several minutes before collapse (yet the building inexplicably remained standing), explosives going off during the collapses twenty to thirty stories below the collapse front (yet the buildings inexplicably didn't start collapsing at those points), thermite/thermate in the rubble to heat/melt steel in the weeks following the collapses, nuclear weapons in the basements, laser beams from outer space ...

AND hand grenades.

It all makes sense now ...

Blender Head
11th October 2007, 10:16 PM
You forgot about the grenades.

I always forget the smoking gun, coming in the form of a grenade.

R.Mackey
11th October 2007, 11:54 PM
I don't know if he's a Holocaust denier but his story confirms Rodriguez's story, and Saltalamacia reports up to at least 10 explosions throughout the building, "like grenades", "different explosions."


Maybe you guys can help me with this --

How can one (say, Dr. Griffin, or Mr. Rodriguez) argue simultaneously that these several "explosions," "like grenades," obviously going off over an hour before WTC 1 actually collapsed are critical in the destruction of the building...

... and the whopping great airliner that smacked into it was not?

Minor explosions are typical in a complex fire. Doubly so when that structure has an estimated 24,000 pounds of jet fuel dumped into it (that's strictly jet fuel that didn't burn off on impact or spray outside the building). Ten explosions "like grenades" just don't impress me, sorry.

BenBurch
12th October 2007, 12:03 AM
What I cannot grasp is how we are supposed to believe that one HOUR before the aircraft hit, there was CHAOS inside the World Trade Center, and CNN wasn't already covering it live?

I mean, I think I am insulted that anybody would think I was stupid enough to buy that yard of malarky.

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 12:55 AM
Allow me to cherry pick.

First, Sal. is describing the sounds he heard. When witnesses to a shooting crime, people often compare the sound to firecrackers. That's not to say they think they were firecrackers. He's not an explosives expert and used sounds he was familiar with to describe what he heard. He's describing the repetitive nature of the explosions he heard.

Secondly, I don't have endless hours to reply to every post on here. I started the thread, I won't abandon it. You can be sure of that.

The word is that this is just a short clip of longer interviews. Sal. is quite clear that he doubts the official narrative even at the end of this clip. It appears most people didn't watch the video to the end.



In other words, the explosions he heard sounded like...explosions. When he used the word "grenades," he didn't have any idea what grenades sound like, as opposed to other things that go 'Boom.' So, he confirms that there were sounds of stuff blowing up, a point everyone agrees on.

What exactly has he added to our understanding of the collapses? Could you run it by us again?

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 12:59 AM
how does one "preform" a mockery?



I'm astonished that you don't know, TAM. You take a perfectly good mockery and kind of knead it and twist it and slap it around a bit before hurling it.

Always happy to be of service.




Where was the "implied" insult, I didn't see anything implied?

TAM:)


I don't know anything about insults.

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 01:08 AM
Maybe you guys can help me with this --

How can one (say, Dr. Griffin, or Mr. Rodriguez) argue simultaneously that these several "explosions," "like grenades," obviously going off over an hour before WTC 1 actually collapsed are critical in the destruction of the building...

... and the whopping great airliner that smacked into it was not?

Minor explosions are typical in a complex fire. Doubly so when that structure has an estimated 24,000 pounds of jet fuel dumped into it (that's strictly jet fuel that didn't burn off on impact or spray outside the building). Ten explosions "like grenades" just don't impress me, sorry.


Ralph Kramden explains it to Ryan Mackey:

Kramden: You wanna know why the explosions an hour before the building collapsed were critical, but the actual plane crash wasn't? I'll tell you why they were critical.

(pause)

I'll tell you why they were critical.

(longer pause)

You really wanna know why the explosions were critical? The explosions an hour before the collapse?

(pause)

Why wasn't the actual plane crash important? I'll tell you why it wasn't important.

(triumphant pause)

Just for that, now I'm not gonna tell you anything!

Disbelief
12th October 2007, 04:53 AM
In other words, the explosions he heard sounded like...explosions. When he used the word "grenades," he didn't have any idea what grenades sound like, as opposed to other things that go 'Boom.' So, he confirms that there were sounds of stuff blowing up, a point everyone agrees on.

What exactly has he added to our understanding of the collapses? Could you run it by us again?

This is what gets me about the troofers. It is okay if he describes the explosions as sounding like grenades, even though they know they obviously weren't grenades. However, when we bring up other things that are known to explode in fires (transformers, steam pipes, etc.), we are being blind or foolish.

SpaceMonkeyZero
12th October 2007, 05:19 AM
*sigh* Speculation and Conjecture. Nothing new here.

Tell me when you have hard physical proof.

Events that "Sound LIKE explosions" are not the same as "are explosions"

Also... Where is the unedited video of this interview. Probably cut out the parts where he said "I'm no MIHOP or LIHOPer"

Swing Dangler
12th October 2007, 05:20 AM
Well here we go again with that excellent debunker logic.

"The explosions heard could have been from anything..............anything but explosive devices. "

"Yeah it was the jet fuel dude!"

"Well how did the fuel get down there?"

"Dude, it just did, that is why its the jet fuel and if it wasn't jet fuel, it was pop cans, or transformers, or oxygen tanks, or little elves with bad gas, you know dude, anything but explosive devices because you know terrorists don't use those things anymore!"

:big:

Happy Friday!

WildCat
12th October 2007, 05:29 AM
Well here we go again with that excellent debunker logic.

"The explosions heard could have been from anything..............anything but explosive devices. "

"Yeah it was the jet fuel dude!"

"Well how did the fuel get down there?"

"Dude, it just did, that is why its the jet fuel and if it wasn't jet fuel, it was pop cans, or transformers, or oxygen tanks, or little elves with bad gas, you know dude, anything but explosive devices because you know terrorists don't use those things anymore!"

:big:

Happy Friday!
Therer is no evidence at all of explosives, certainly none capable of bringing down the towers. But there is all kinds of evidence for giant honking planes slamming into the towers at full throttle. But somehow, in troofer land, that is insignificant to someone hearing an explosion that sounded like a grenade. I'd love to see the grenade that can take out the towers, but only an hour or so after the explosion.

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 05:30 AM
Well here we go again with that excellent debunker logic.

"The explosions heard could have been from anything..............anything but explosive devices. "

"Yeah it was the jet fuel dude!"

"Well how did the fuel get down there?"

"Dude, it just did, that is why its the jet fuel and if it wasn't jet fuel, it was pop cans, or transformers, or oxygen tanks, or little elves with bad gas, you know dude, anything but explosive devices because you know terrorists don't use those things anymore!"

:big:

Happy Friday!


Your Skilling quote says everything anyone needs to know about you. Are you pretending that there exists a building that could not be brought down by a top demolition specialist? No? Then, what is your point?

You, of course, neglect to remind us that the demolition specialist would require a great deal of time and a large team of assistants to prepare the building. He could not hope to do the job undetected.

The jet fuel, unsurprisingly, came from jets--specifically, the hijacked jets that crashed into the buildings.

Drudgewire
12th October 2007, 05:35 AM
The jet fuel, unsurprisingly, came from jets--specifically, the hijacked jets that crashed into the buildings.
Oh so now grenades can't be loaded with jet fuel? http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 05:40 AM
Oh so now grenades can't be loaded with jet fuel? http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif


No, I'm just saying that you needed the jets to load the grenades. When Bush wanted to forget about the jets because they had so many grenades, Cheney was the first to explain that without the jets, there would be no way to load the grenades.

And people think that these Impossibly Vast Conspiracy guys don't plan carefully just because they take the trouble to leave tons of clues for morons!

MarkyX
12th October 2007, 05:43 AM
What's more amazing is this guy is alive.

If this guy really witnessed explosions that came from bombs meant to take down a 110 story building, he shouldn't be on YouTube right now. He should be dead.

ref
12th October 2007, 05:49 AM
And people think that these Impossibly Vast Conspiracy guys don't plan carefully just because they take the trouble to leave tons of clues for morons!

I'm sure Griffin will explain this to us in his new book, 9/11 Contradictions!

Swing Dangler
12th October 2007, 06:08 AM
Therer is no evidence at all of explosives, certainly none capable of bringing down the towers. But there is all kinds of evidence for giant honking planes slamming into the towers at full throttle. But somehow, in troofer land, that is insignificant to someone hearing an explosion that sounded like a grenade. I'd love to see the grenade that can take out the towers, but only an hour or so after the explosion.

I don't think it is insignificant of course but the towers still stood after the planes hit. So much for the planes knocking the towers down. Then if it weren't the planes it would be the jet fuel. But no one can trace the route of the jet fuel and still account for Arturo Griffiths survival. Nor can anyone explain how people and parts of the structure survived nearest to impact while a parking garage, Path Level Plaza, machine shop etc. farthest away from impact did not. Remember dude, anything but explosive devices!

Now what you could do is seek to have a significant amount of steel tested to prove the use or the lack of use of explosives and settle the issue once and for all. But alas, no agency did that and no one seem interested in that line of investigation. That way at least all those sounds that come from anything but explosives could truly be debunked, including the sound on Jenny Carr's video.

If this guy really witnessed explosions that came from bombs meant to take down a 110 story building, he shouldn't be on YouTube right now. He should be dead.
Really? And do tell what kind of bombs were they? Big ones, lots of small ones? Size does matter you know.
Oh and to support that statement you could place him on a layout of the basement and determine where he was at when he heard the explosions.

SpaceMonkeyZero
12th October 2007, 06:13 AM
Well here we go again with that excellent debunker logic.

"The explosions heard could have been from anything..............anything but explosive devices. "

"Yeah it was the jet fuel dude!"

"Well how did the fuel get down there?"

"Dude, it just did, that is why its the jet fuel and if it wasn't jet fuel, it was pop cans, or transformers, or oxygen tanks, or little elves with bad gas, you know dude, anything but explosive devices because you know terrorists don't use those things anymore!"

:big:

Happy Friday!

I'm sorry, I missed where you had HARD PHYSICAL PROOF of explosives being placed, wired up, and detonated.

"Sounds Like" is not proof. Hell, "Sounds like" wouldn't survive a cross examination in a court of law.

So, please... Come up with hard physical proof, not speculation or conjecture, or youtube videos.

ref
12th October 2007, 06:14 AM
Really? And do tell what kind of bombs were they? Big ones, lots of small ones? Size does matter you know.
Oh and to support that statement you could place him on a layout of the basement and determine where he was at when he heard the explosions.

Still pushing that explosives in the basement 1 hour before the collapse -theory? Of course they would have to be bigger than firecrackers to weaken the columns, right? But not to weaken them too much, so the collapse would not start from the basement. Medium size crackers. Maybe they dented the columns.

The basement bomb theory is just too silly to be taken seriously.

ZENSMACK89
12th October 2007, 06:39 AM
and he could tell they were grenades (or explosives), based on what...he is an explosives expert with enough skill to distinguish I suppose...lol

TAM:)
Well not as much as you who didn't even have to be there to know what they weren't.

cyclonic
12th October 2007, 06:40 AM
They are designed so as to make that unlikely. But there are a lot of other things that explode in ordinary office building fires.

thanks for that ben, i always wondered about the fire extinguishers and your right about the office fires, is there a list of the businesses in the impact and fire zones?
did the restaurant.windows on the world use gas for cooking?
the plane wreckage might also account for some of the explosions, an intact wheel and tyre for instance.
but the fact is there was no loud explosions prior to the collapse like all other controlled demolitions in history, a simple fact the truth movement can't seem to understand.

Arkan_Wolfshade
12th October 2007, 06:46 AM
. . . Now what you could do is seek to have a significant amount of steel tested to prove the use or the lack of use of explosives and settle the issue once and for all.
. . .
Pretend the steel is still available; how much of it would need to be tested, and come up negative for explosive residue, to meet your "significant amount" criteria?

RedIbis
12th October 2007, 06:51 AM
What's more amazing is this guy is alive.

If this guy really witnessed explosions that came from bombs meant to take down a 110 story building, he shouldn't be on YouTube right now. He should be dead.

And some of you guys wonder why people have a hard time publically telling their accounts. It's because of guys like Marky here who daydream of their deaths.

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 06:56 AM
And some of you guys wonder why people have a hard time publically telling their accounts. It's because of guys like Marky here who daydream of their deaths.


Pretty desperate. Why not simply throw in the towel?

chillzero
12th October 2007, 06:57 AM
And some of you guys wonder why people have a hard time publically telling their accounts. It's because of guys like Marky here who daydream of their deaths.

That's not what he said.

Swing Dangler
12th October 2007, 06:59 AM
Still pushing that explosives in the basement 1 hour before the collapse -theory? Of course they would have to be bigger than firecrackers to weaken the columns, right? But not to weaken them too much, so the collapse would not start from the basement. Medium size crackers. Maybe they dented the columns.

The basement bomb theory is just too silly to be taken seriously.

1 hour before the collapse? I never suggested that. In fact the time frame can be pin pointed to Jenny Carr's video in my opinion.

You don't have to take the basement bomb seriously. In fact, I suspect you won't because the empirical method supports that particular phase of the terrorist attacks.


I'm sorry, I missed where you had HARD PHYSICAL PROOF of explosives being placed, wired up, and detonated.

I see you are a believer in the "Stoopid Terrorist Theory". This theory expects terrorists as being bumbling idiots so much so that they are witnessed placing the explosives, wiring them up, and pushing a button so the authorities could be alerted to the possible prevention of the attack. It is a twist on the "If I can't see it, then it doesn't exist theory" which of course is debunked by oxygen. The hard physical proof I called for was the empirical evidence that would silence proponents of the CD theory: chemical testing for residue from a large enough sample to either prove or disprove the use of explosive devices. Care to offer that hard physical proof to us?

but the fact is there was no loud explosions prior to the collapse like all other controlled demolitions in history, a simple fact the truth movement can't seem to understand.
The fact is the historical record of course completely disagrees with you. You may want to view CNN videos from the day.

RedIbis
12th October 2007, 07:00 AM
That's not what he said.

Forgive me for spotting the not so hidden inference.

It's also horrendously bad logic. Just because people make accusatory docs or travel the world saying things about the gov't does not mean they will each be taken out one by one.

Arkan_Wolfshade
12th October 2007, 07:02 AM
Forgive me for spotting the not so hidden inference.

It's also horrendously bad logic. Just because people make accusatory docs or travel the world saying things about the gov't does not mean they will each be taken out one by one.
Drop the bovine excrement equivocation; he was clearly stated that he wouldn't have survived the explosion, not that he would be assassinated.

Pardalis
12th October 2007, 07:03 AM
Funny how he starts talking about Rodriguez before telling what he saw and heard.

It's as if the interview is really about Rodriguez, and confirming his story, instead of being about what this guy's has to say.

RedIbis
12th October 2007, 07:04 AM
Pretty desperate. Why not simply throw in the towel?

You hope so, don't you?

Ron, I watched your show a few times. You seem like a nice enough guy. Both you and Gravy take a prominent role in this forum, I would just hope that you focus your research skills, not only on flawed CT nonsense, but on flawed OT nonsense and the terrible logic that is often used here.

Mr. Skinny
12th October 2007, 07:04 AM
do fire extinguishers explode when subjected to intense heat?

They are designed so as to make that unlikely. But there are a lot of other things that explode in ordinary office building fires.
Can I ask why you say this, Ben? Seems to me a fire extinguisher is a pressure vessel which is normally, well, pressurized. If involved in a fire and the contents expand to create a pressure beyond the maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of the container, it will explode.

Granted, they are a more substantial vessel than, let's say, a can of spray paint, but I doubt they are designed to withstand much more than 150 percent of MAWP.

RedIbis
12th October 2007, 07:07 AM
Drop the bovine excrement equivocation; he was clearly stated that he wouldn't have survived the explosion, not that he would be assassinated.

I concede that point. I did read it quickly and associated it with the flawed logic of thinking that people like Avery, et al shouldn't even be alive right now because of the accusatory nature of their research.

Can you concede that it's still terrible logic and bad research since Sal. reports the first explosion below him, which obviously wouldn't kill him, and the fact that hearing up to ten explosions throughout the buildng does not mean all occupants would be immediately killed?

chillzero
12th October 2007, 07:08 AM
Forgive me for spotting the not so hidden inference.

It's also horrendously bad logic. Just because people make accusatory docs or travel the world saying things about the gov't does not mean they will each be taken out one by one.

Well, my reading and understanding of this is twofold - neither of which amounts to daydreaming of their deaths.

What's more amazing is this guy is alive.

If this guy really witnessed explosions that came from bombs meant to take down a 110 story building, he shouldn't be on YouTube right now. He should be dead.

1 - If he was correct and there were bombs in the basement - those very same bombs would have killed him. Hence, he should be dead.

2 - If he was correct and the government did such a job, then clearly they would clean up loose ends, and suppress such information from being so widely publicised. Hence, he shouldn't be posting on YouTube ...

My sense is that interpretation number 1 is correct.

ETA: Sorry - slow typing, ignore this as already addressed.

cyclonic
12th October 2007, 07:11 AM
The fact is the historical record of course completely disagrees with you. You may want to view CNN videos from the day.

give me a link.

Arkan_Wolfshade
12th October 2007, 07:13 AM
I concede that point. I did read it quickly and associated it with the flawed logic of thinking that people like Avery, et al shouldn't even be alive right now because of the accusatory nature of their research.
Why wouldn't they be assassinated? What is the logical flaw in that line of thinking?

Can you concede that it's still terrible logic and bad research since Sal. reports the first explosion below him, which obviously wouldn't kill him, and the fact that hearing up to ten explosions throughout the buildng does not mean all occupants would be immediately killed?
It was an unsubstantiated off-hand comment. Does it hold up to scrutany? No. Should it be referred to as "research" (good or bad)? No. That you have referred to it as such goes to show that you are still trying to spin it in to more than the quip that it is.

chatiez
12th October 2007, 07:14 AM
I red from foam extinguisher instruction a moment ago that over 60 C can blow safety ventile open and fast raise of temperature to over 500 C can result to whole tube blow up

twinstead
12th October 2007, 07:16 AM
There is at least one phone call that was in progress with somebody trapped in one of the towers when it collapsed.

It was sudden. I don't recall hearing any cracks of CD explosions in the audio prior to the collapse, and this person was closest to the actual collapse are than anybody who is alive today.

RedIbis
12th October 2007, 07:16 AM
Why wouldn't they be assassinated? What is the logical flaw in that line of thinking?


It was an unsubstantiated off-hand comment. Does it hold up to scrutany? No. Should it be referred to as "research" (good or bad)? No. That you have referred to it as such goes to show that you are still trying to spin it in to more than the quip that it is.

Perhaps we can agree that any misunderstanding in that exchange was due to hasty quippage.

Arkan_Wolfshade
12th October 2007, 07:18 AM
Perhaps we can agree that any misunderstanding in that exchange was due to hasty quippage.
At the very least this is an unnecessary tangent/derail.



So, Swing Dangler, how much steel should have been tested for explosive residue?

SpaceMonkeyZero
12th October 2007, 07:19 AM
I see you are a believer in the "Stoopid Terrorist Theory". This theory expects terrorists as being bumbling idiots so much so that they are witnessed placing the explosives, wiring them up, and pushing a button so the authorities could be alerted to the possible prevention of the attack. It is a twist on the "If I can't see it, then it doesn't exist theory" which of course is debunked by oxygen. The hard physical proof I called for was the empirical evidence that would silence proponents of the CD theory: chemical testing for residue from a large enough sample to either prove or disprove the use of explosive devices. Care to offer that hard physical proof to us?

I see you are a believer in the "Magical All Powerful NWO Super Secret Ninja Explosive Experts Theory" that magically wired up all the columns in an active office building without destroying any walls or raising any suspicions. Your "proof" is "Well, It COULDN'T have been the official reason, so therefore it MUST have been explosives and a CD!" I see you're also a believer in "Well, whoever pulled this off destroyed all evidence!" Why have the only people who have "come forward" are people who insist that they "heard something like" rather than someone who said "This is on my conscious, me and 600 others wired up the WTC months before... I don't care if I'm killed now, I need to get this off my chest."

Do you see how one is a confused "ear" witness, and the other would truly be an evidence bombshell?

I'm sorry, but it's up to YOU to provide the evidence to your claims. Claiming that the evidence was destroyed is NOT proof of evidence. I'm sorry, but proof is not speculation. You have nothing but speculation.

Mr. Skinny
12th October 2007, 07:21 AM
I red from foam extinguisher instruction a moment ago that over 60 C can blow safety ventile open and fast raise of temperature to over 500 C can result to whole tube blow up
Sounds like they might have a fusible plug in the extinguisher vessel then, as I've never seen one with a pressure relief valve.

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 07:26 AM
1 hour before the collapse? I never suggested that. In fact the time frame can be pin pointed to Jenny Carr's video in my opinion.

You don't have to take the basement bomb seriously. In fact, I suspect you won't because the empirical method supports that particular phase of the terrorist attacks.


.

I see you are a believer in the "Stoopid Terrorist Theory". This theory expects terrorists as being bumbling idiots so much so that they are witnessed placing the explosives, wiring them up, and pushing a button so the authorities could be alerted to the possible prevention of the attack. It is a twist on the "If I can't see it, then it doesn't exist theory" which of course is debunked by oxygen. The hard physical proof I called for was the empirical evidence that would silence proponents of the CD theory: chemical testing for residue from a large enough sample to either prove or disprove the use of explosive devices. Care to offer that hard physical proof to us?


The fact is the historical record of course completely disagrees with you. You may want to view CNN videos from the day.


Swingie, you never quite get around to telling us what you, an ignoramus, know about demolition that specialists in the field do not. The real experts claim that the myth pushed by conspiracy liars is absurd. Absolutely no evidence--no detonator caps, no wiring, no residues--exists that suggests the use of explosives. These experts insist that the task of wiring two huge buildings would have presented insurmountable logistical difficulties. You dismiss their expertise, but what do you actually know? Why should should your glaring ignorance of the relevant fields allow you to dispute the findings of genuine authorities? What is the source of your special insight?

RedIbis
12th October 2007, 07:33 AM
At the very least this is an unnecessary tangent/derail.



Boy, you sure are grouchy.

cyclonic
12th October 2007, 07:34 AM
I red from foam extinguisher instruction a moment ago that over 60 C can blow safety ventile open and fast raise of temperature to over 500 C can result to whole tube blow up

thats intresting, what kind of extinguishers were in the towers and how many were there on each floor? and even though the jet fuel was burned up in ten minutes there was still the wreckage of the plane burning, we have all seen plane fires where the top of the fuselage melts, air france flight 358 burnt for 2 hours despite firefighting efforts, imo it was the impact of the planes and then the wreckage burning that led to the collapses.

MarkyX
12th October 2007, 07:38 AM
And some of you guys wonder why people have a hard time publically telling their accounts. It's because of guys like Marky here who daydream of their deaths.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Tell me how William and this guy would've survived this.

Swing Dangler
12th October 2007, 07:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Tell me how William and this guy would've survived this.

I can't access Youtube. Where did you get video of the basement levels of the WTC: North Tower complex on 9/11? Did someone release them?

MarkyX
12th October 2007, 07:42 AM
I can't access Youtube. Where did you get video of the basement levels of the WTC: North Tower complex on 9/11? Did someone release them?

You didn't even look at my argument but already try to counter it?

NobbyNobbs
12th October 2007, 07:47 AM
Ralph Kramden explains it to Ryan Mackey:

Kramden: You wanna know why the explosions an hour before the building collapsed were critical, but the actual plane crash wasn't? I'll tell you why they were critical.

(pause)

I'll tell you why they were critical.

(longer pause)

You really wanna know why the explosions were critical? The explosions an hour before the collapse?

(pause)

Why wasn't the actual plane crash important? I'll tell you why it wasn't important.

(triumphant pause)

Just for that, now I'm not gonna tell you anything!

Strange, I always imagined it more as an Abbott and Costello routine...


Costello: So, tell me how the towers came down.

Abbott: It was the explosives.

C: Explosives? At the top or the bottom?
A: Yes.
C: Yes, where? Where were the explosives?
A: At the top or the bottom.
C: So, were they at the top, or the bottom?
A: Yes.
C: Yes, what?
A: Yes, they were.
C: Were what?
A: There were explosives at the top or the bottom.
C: Hmph. Well, lemme ask you this. What kind of explosives? Jet fuel? Thermite? Nuclear bombs?
A: Sure.
C: Well, which was it? The explosives, that is.
A: Yes, the explosives.
C: The thermite?
A: Yes.
C: Not the nuclear bombs?
A: Of course.
C: Of course, they were there, or of course they weren't?
A: Listen, buddy, you're not paying attention.
C: I'm trying! Were there bombs at the top or not?
A: I said so, didn't I?
C: But were there bombs at the bottom.
A: Oh, you mean the grenades.
C: Aaaagh!!!!

cyclonic
12th October 2007, 07:48 AM
notice the heliicopter doesn't drown out the sound of the explosions.

Swing Dangler
12th October 2007, 07:51 AM
I see you are a believer in the "Magical All Powerful NWO Super Secret Ninja Explosive Experts Theory" that magically wired up all the columns in an active office building without destroying any walls or raising any suspicions. Your "proof" is "Well, It COULDN'T have been the official reason, so therefore it MUST have been explosives and a CD!" I see you're also a believer in "Well, whoever pulled this off destroyed all evidence!" Why have the only people who have "come forward" are people who insist that they "heard something like" rather than someone who said "This is on my conscious, me and 600 others wired up the WTC months before... I don't care if I'm killed now, I need to get this off my chest."


Can you please reference where I stated evidence was destroyed? I would like to clear that up because to my knowledge I never stated such thing. What I did state was that there were no chemical tests done to prove or disprove the use of explosives.

I would suggest instead of using the NWO Secret Ninja method, trying basing your research in reality. Let me pave the way by suggesting the investigation of one, Sakher 'Rocky' Hammad and his relatives.

Arkan- Great question. How much do you think? I know for one I would request the start of the testing be done with the molten steel and metal and along the mechanical floors and the core. I would also suggest the core in the basement levels as well.

Cyclonic-give me a link Here is a start-view here (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=PeL&q=Explosions+WTC+9/11&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv)

Calcas
12th October 2007, 07:51 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Tell me how William and this guy would've survived this.

I love this quote from some guy over there.

"You noticed that it started collapsing at the bottom instead of the top. I hope all you conspiracy theorists eat your words now."

Dave Rogers
12th October 2007, 07:57 AM
I know for one I would request the start of the testing be done with the molten steel and metal and along the mechanical floors and the core.

You want to start by testing something nobody has ever found and whose only evidence of existence is a third-hand hearsay report in a neo-Nazi newspaper? Perhaps you should raise that hoop a little higher, there's a serious danger someone might manage to jump through it.

Dave

Swing Dangler
12th October 2007, 07:59 AM
You didn't even look at my argument but already try to counter it?

No just a hint of sarcasm to point out the fallacy that is sure to follow. Complex question that is...comparing two unrelated events to support your contention that those who experienced an the audio effects of an explosion in the basement should be dead. Not all explosions are created equal you know. ;)

Mr. Skinny
12th October 2007, 08:01 AM
thats intresting, what kind of extinguishers were in the towers and how many were there on each floor? and even though the jet fuel was burned up in ten minutes there was still the wreckage of the plane burning, we have all seen plane fires where the top of the fuselage melts, air france flight 358 burnt for 2 hours despite firefighting efforts, imo it was the impact of the planes and then the wreckage burning that led to the collapses.
It's hard to say exactly how many extinguishers would have been in the towers, or how many were on each floor. NFPA 10 specifies extinguisher numbers based on travel distance not floor square footage. The standard states (depending on expected hazard) that the travel distance not exceed 50 to 75 feet.

Nonetheless, I'd wager that there were probably, at minimum, a few dozen? per floor and thus, several thousand in each tower. I think that's a pretty conservative WAG.


ETA: As to the type of extinguisher, the most common in office environments is an ABC dry chemical type.

cyclonic
12th October 2007, 08:09 AM
swing - the first one is from miss clunkity clunk with no sound lol
the next 2 are the floors collapsing, no offence but do you have a hearing problem?
btw my pc runs audio through a 200 watts quad amplifier.

16.5
12th October 2007, 08:10 AM
Wait? This guy confirmed which story? The story he told on the day of the event where WR said he heard a "rumbling" or Willie's later story that there were huge explosions?

Anyone looking to explain Willie's explosions is on a fool's errand.

cyclonic
12th October 2007, 08:28 AM
It's hard to say exactly how many extinguishers would have been in the towers, or how many were on each floor. NFPA 10 specifies extinguisher numbers based on travel distance not floor square footage. The standard states (depending on expected hazard) that the travel distance not exceed 50 to 75 feet.

Nonetheless, I'd wager that there were probably, at minimum, a few dozen? per floor and thus, several thousand in each tower. I think that's a pretty conservative WAG.


ETA: As to the type of extinguisher, the most common in office environments is an ABC dry chemical type.

thanks mr. skinny

HyJinX
12th October 2007, 08:33 AM
Strange, I always imagined it more as an Abbott and Costello routine...


Costello: So, tell me how the towers came down.

Abbott: It was the explosives.

C: Explosives? At the top or the bottom?
A: Yes.
C: Yes, where? Where were the explosives?
A: At the top or the bottom.
C: So, were they at the top, or the bottom?
A: Yes.
C: Yes, what?
A: Yes, they were.
C: Were what?
A: There were explosives at the top or the bottom.
C: Hmph. Well, lemme ask you this. What kind of explosives? Jet fuel? Thermite? Nuclear bombs?
A: Sure.
C: Well, which was it? The explosives, that is.
A: Yes, the explosives.
C: The thermite?
A: Yes.
C: Not the nuclear bombs?
A: Of course.
C: Of course, they were there, or of course they weren't?
A: Listen, buddy, you're not paying attention.
C: I'm trying! Were there bombs at the top or not?
A: I said so, didn't I?
C: But were there bombs at the bottom.
A: Oh, you mean the grenades.
C: Aaaagh!!!!

Exactly!!!

Can any CTist please explain why there would be explosions at the bottom if it was a planned "top-down" demolition???

cyclonic
12th October 2007, 08:35 AM
swing watch and listen to this, closest audio
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=E4LHUOPOEv4

lapman
12th October 2007, 08:57 AM
First, Sal. is describing the sounds he heard. When witnesses to a shooting crime, people often compare the sound to firecrackers. That's not to say they think they were firecrackers. He's not an explosives expert and used sounds he was familiar with to describe what he heard. He's describing the repetitive nature of the explosions he heard.
Are you forgetting that the first impression of what made the initial sound of the airplanes hitting WTC2 was that it was transformers exploding. Since it was made clear that we were being attacked by terrorists, it would be easy for that impression to be changed from transformers to bombs since bombs are associated with terrorists. So it really does not matter how many of those sounds he heard. Until there is evidence of explosives, you cannot say with any certainty that the sounds he heard were from explosives going off.
The word is that this is just a short clip of longer interviews. Sal. is quite clear that he doubts the official narrative even at the end of this clip. It appears most people didn't watch the video to the end.Did he receive any money for his interview?

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 09:06 AM
Exactly!!!

Can any CTist please explain why there would be explosions at the bottom if it was a planned "top-down" demolition???


You have to check out the fantasists' bible, Think Like a Loon, by the movement's most distinguished structural engineer AND physicist, Anonymous.

He (she?) writes that the observable fact that the buildings collapsed from the impact floors demonstrates that explosives were planted on those floors, otherwise the buildings would have collapsed from different floors.
QED. That explosives were planted on the bottom floors can be demonstrated by pointing to the fact the real demolition experts always plant explosives on the bottom floors. Why nothing that happened on the bottom floors had anything to do with the collapses will be explained in depth in the next edition.

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 09:11 AM
Strange, I always imagined it more as an Abbott and Costello routine...


Costello: So, tell me how the towers came down.

Abbott: It was the explosives.

C: Explosives? At the top or the bottom?
A: Yes.
C: Yes, where? Where were the explosives?
A: At the top or the bottom.
C: So, were they at the top, or the bottom?
A: Yes.
C: Yes, what?
A: Yes, they were.
C: Were what?
A: There were explosives at the top or the bottom.
C: Hmph. Well, lemme ask you this. What kind of explosives? Jet fuel? Thermite? Nuclear bombs?
A: Sure.
C: Well, which was it? The explosives, that is.
A: Yes, the explosives.
C: The thermite?
A: Yes.
C: Not the nuclear bombs?
A: Of course.
C: Of course, they were there, or of course they weren't?
A: Listen, buddy, you're not paying attention.
C: I'm trying! Were there bombs at the top or not?
A: I said so, didn't I?
C: But were there bombs at the bottom.
A: Oh, you mean the grenades.
C: Aaaagh!!!!


:D

Arkan_Wolfshade
12th October 2007, 09:27 AM
Boy, you sure are grouchy.
Sorry. Hadn't had any coffee yet. One day I'll learn not to post before having consumed some caffeine.

. . .
Great question. How much do you think? I know for one I would request the start of the testing be done with the molten steel and metal and along the mechanical floors and the core. I would also suggest the core in the basement levels as well.
. . .
Let me reword my question as I believe you have misunderstood it. At what percentage of the total steel, after having been tested, would you agree that further testing was unnecessary?

cyclonic
12th October 2007, 09:33 AM
theres nothing more frightning then the webfairys cartoon universe.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xvltNNdxjbI



:)

Swing Dangler
12th October 2007, 09:42 AM
You want to start by testing something nobody has ever found and whose only evidence of existence is a third-hand hearsay report in a neo-Nazi newspaper? Perhaps you should raise that hoop a little higher, there's a serious danger someone might manage to jump through it.

Dave

Well Bollyn would be the last source if at all. Did Mark Louiseux retract the statements to him?

I was referring to firefighter testimonies as recorded on video in regards to molten metal flowing like lava and Les Robertson description in his keynote address as summarized in SEAU news. I would also test the intergranual melting found on the steel from WTC 7 as well.

I may be uninformed, but did Les Robertson retract his information as found in his keynote address to the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations Annual Conference as found in SEAU news found here (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)?

Kent1
12th October 2007, 09:47 AM
Well Bollyn would be the last source if at all. Did Mark Louiseux retract the statements to him?

I was referring to firefighter testimonies as recorded on video in regards to molten metal flowing like lava and Les Robertson description in his keynote address as summarized in SEAU news. I would also test the intergranual melting found on the steel from WTC 7 as well.

I may be uninformed, but did Les Robertson retract his information as found in his keynote address to the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations Annual Conference as found in SEAU news found here (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)?

I've stated this numerous times. Yes he did, he never said steel.
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html
Here's what Mr. Robertson stated:
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."
James Williams notes from the address do not mention steel either.

BenBurch
12th October 2007, 10:13 AM
Can I ask why you say this, Ben? Seems to me a fire extinguisher is a pressure vessel which is normally, well, pressurized. If involved in a fire and the contents expand to create a pressure beyond the maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of the container, it will explode.

Granted, they are a more substantial vessel than, let's say, a can of spray paint, but I doubt they are designed to withstand much more than 150 percent of MAWP.

They are designed so that a weak plug blows out or the valve element melts and discharges the bottle before an explosion can occur.

Swing Dangler
12th October 2007, 10:24 AM
I've stated this numerous times. Yes he did, he never said steel.
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html
Here's what Mr. Robertson stated:
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."
James Williams notes from the address do not mention steel either.

James Williams does not mention steel? Wow, you either missed it or didn't read it or read it out of context. Since a fellow debunker will probably not educate you, let me assist in your understanding of my position.

The portion is from page 3, October 2003. The applicable quote is from a continuation of page 1. Page 1 is about facts from Robertson keynote address as discussed by James Williams. From Williams himself: Following are some other interesting facts you may not know.

As of 21 days after the attack, the
fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running.
The source again from the Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of America, Volume 6, Issue 2, October 2001. If you combine this information along with the firefighter testimony and other comments and steel tests, in my opinion it is safe to say there was molten steel observed at the complex.

I think we can lay to rest your retort.


Arkan- Perhaps 75-80% of the steel.

CHF
12th October 2007, 10:25 AM
I don't think it is insignificant of course but the towers still stood after the planes hit. So much for the planes knocking the towers down.

Show me where the NIST report says that planes knocked down the towers.

Go ahead, I can't wait to read the quote.

Kent1
12th October 2007, 10:33 AM
James Williams does not mention steel? Wow, you either missed it or didn't read it or read it out of context. Since a fellow debunker will probably not educate you, let me assist in your understanding of my position.

The portion is from page 3, October 2003. The applicable quote is from a continuation of page 1. Page 1 is about facts from Robertson keynote address as discussed by James Williams. From Williams himself:

The source again from the Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of America, Volume 6, Issue 2, October 2001.

I think we can lay to rest your retort.

Perhaps 75-80% of the steel.

You really might want to read the article I linked to. He never said steel. I even got Williams original notes from the keynote for the article. There is no mention of "steel" in HIS OWN notes. I e-mailed both of them myself!! Sigh....

Again this was put to rest a long time ago.

Disbelief
12th October 2007, 10:36 AM
James Williams does not mention steel? Wow, you either missed it or didn't read it or read it out of context. Since a fellow debunker will probably not educate you, let me assist in your understanding of my position.

The portion is from page 3, October 2003. The applicable quote is from a continuation of page 1. Page 1 is about facts from Robertson keynote address as discussed by James Williams. From Williams himself:

The source again from the Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of America, Volume 6, Issue 2, October 2001.

I think we can lay to rest your retort.



Wow, you can't follow links can you. Guess you missed the part where Williams provides his notes. Please show in his notes where he says steel, instead of the newsletter that someone else typed.

ETA: Page 3 of notes, it clearly states molten metal.

CHF
12th October 2007, 10:41 AM
You really might want to read the article I linked to. He never said steel. I even got Williams original notes from the keynote for the article. There is no mention of "steel" in HIS OWN notes. I e-mailed both of them myself!! Sigh....

Again this was put to rest a long time ago.

I recall seeing this being explained to Swing on SLC a few months ago.

Glad to see he understood it. :rolleyes:

ETA: Page 3 of notes, it clearly states molten metal.

In Swing Dangler's world metal can only mean steel.

How would Swing's basement bombs create molten steel anyway?

T.A.M.
12th October 2007, 10:49 AM
Ok Red, Zen, etal:

It COULD have been explosives.

There is no evidence of any being in the building, where as we know there were electrical transformers, and ALMOST certainly Aeresol Cans, as well as Oxygen canisters. I have provided numerous links to videos showing audio and video that easily could be mistaken for "Explosives", but in fact comes from one of the three I mention above.

The explosions could also have been caused by space aliens or leprachauns. Strawman yes, added for good measure but the rest of my argument is not.

Nutshell:

Evidence for likelihood of NONEXPLOSIVE cause of EXPLOSIONS - yes, lots of it.

Evidence for likelihood of EXPLOSIVE cause of explosions - NONE!!!

Next!

TAM:)

BenBurch
12th October 2007, 10:49 AM
If any large quantity of molten steel had existed in the foundations, it would have flowed to the lowest point it could reach there to form a pool and finally an immense pig of impure iron (it would no longer be steel by then) which would have required extraordinary methods to remove during site clearing.

And such an effort WOULD have gotten some press as it would have been a tough nut to crack.

tsig
12th October 2007, 10:51 AM
I'm astonished that you don't know, TAM. You take a perfectly good mockery and kind of knead it and twist it and slap it around a bit before hurling it.

Always happy to be of service.






I don't know anything about insults.

Can you use preformed mockery like a shaped charge?

T.A.M.
12th October 2007, 10:52 AM
Causing an explosion of "Nah-Nah-Nah...Nah-Nah..Nah!!!"

TAM:)

funk de fino
12th October 2007, 10:55 AM
1 hour before the collapse? I never suggested that. In fact the time frame can be pin pointed to Jenny Carr's video in my opinion.

The fact is the historical record of course completely disagrees with you. You may want to view CNN videos from the day.

What is this? Is it the sound recording I have just heard? Video? Link please?

Show me a video from the day that you hear demolition charges on, there are none. Go to Implosionworld.com and look at the videos of all the demolitions on that site and tell me what is different with them and 911

DGM
12th October 2007, 10:55 AM
James Williams does not mention steel? Wow, you either missed it or didn't read it or read it out of context. Since a fellow debunker will probably not educate you, let me assist in your understanding of my position.

The portion is from page 3, October 2003. The applicable quote is from a continuation of page 1. Page 1 is about facts from Robertson keynote address as discussed by James Williams. From Williams himself:

The source again from the Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of America, Volume 6, Issue 2, October 2001. If you combine this information along with the firefighter testimony and other comments and steel tests, in my opinion it is safe to say there was molten steel observed at the complex.

I think we can lay to rest your retort.

Perhaps 75-80% of the steel.
What would cause molten steel 21 days after the collapse? I've been to CD's and nothing was even warm. Can you explain the significance?

technoextreme
12th October 2007, 10:59 AM
Can I ask why you say this, Ben? Seems to me a fire extinguisher is a pressure vessel which is normally, well, pressurized. If involved in a fire and the contents expand to create a pressure beyond the maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) of the container, it will explode.

Granted, they are a more substantial vessel than, let's say, a can of spray paint, but I doubt they are designed to withstand much more than 150 percent of MAWP.
Pressure release. They automagicaly release the pressure if they get too hot. Mythbusters tried this one and they failed miserably.
Oxygen canisters
Im fairly certain that Oxygen canisters are designed the same way as fire extinguisher.

cyclonic
12th October 2007, 11:02 AM
here's a video exposing steven jones and his "molten metal"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8J2ALXv0c6w

Mr. Skinny
12th October 2007, 11:04 AM
Pressure release. They automagicaly release the pressure if they get too hot. Mythbusters tried this one and they failed miserably.

Im fairly certain that Oxygen canisters are designed the same way as fire extinguisher.
Yeah, I've already admitted they likely have a fusible plug (as opposed to a pressure relief valve).

What did Mythbuster test? Sorry, don't have cable TV.


ETA: Yes, most pressurized gas cylinders (like oxygen) use a fusible plug. Well, for ordinary lab/hospital use anyhow. Larger outdoor storage tanks have PRV's

T.A.M.
12th October 2007, 11:07 AM
electrical transformers, Oxygen cannisters, fire extinguishers, aeresol cans, all objects which when heat is a applied, or trauma is administered, will go "Boom" and loudly.

TAM:)

A W Smith
12th October 2007, 11:09 AM
James Williams does not mention steel? Wow, you either missed it or didn't read it or read it out of context. Since a fellow debunker will probably not educate you, let me assist in your understanding of my position.

The portion is from page 3, October 2003. The applicable quote is from a continuation of page 1. Page 1 is about facts from Robertson keynote address as discussed by James Williams. From Williams himself:

The source again from the Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of America, Volume 6, Issue 2, October 2001. If you combine this information along with the firefighter testimony and other comments and steel tests, in my opinion it is safe to say there was molten steel observed at the complex.

I think we can lay to rest your retort.

Perhaps 75-80% of the steel.

here is the relevant portion of James Williams notes (http://www.911myths.com/NCSEA_oct_5_2001_Leslie_Robertson_s_lecture__notes _by_James_Williams.pdf)taken at that meeting.

BenBurch
12th October 2007, 11:18 AM
Before the Great Chicago Fire, the buildings in the business district often had elaborate painted lead facades. During the fire, these all melted and molten lead ran in the streets. So its not like molten metal after a major fire was much of surprise to fire chiefs as that fire ushered in the modern era of firefighting and building codes.

Swing Dangler
12th October 2007, 11:54 AM
here is the relevant portion of James Williams notes taken at that meeting.
Source?

Also, I checked out the site where these were posted. There are these notes with no source contained only a statement stating they were from Williams. There is not a single email or source from the email from Robertson posted,only a quote. I agree with the 9/11 myths sites final conclusion surrounding the quote that it should be taken with caution, however, when combined with the other factors and evidence, I think it is safe to say there was molten steel, at least in my opinion.

T.A.M. electrical transformers, Oxygen cannisters, fire extinguishers, aeresol cans, all objects which when heat is a applied, or trauma is administered, will go "Boom" and loudly.TAM
Hey Tam! Remember, that good old debunker line of logic...anything but explosive devices. And again, how many of those excuses reminded survivors of the 1993 truck bombing?

And such an effort WOULD have gotten some press as it would have been a tough nut to crack.
Really? Like the pictures shown to Robertson and company by the FBI that the public didn't see? Or as stated as fact by Williams...
All photographs shown on television, shot-on-site were preapproved
by the FBI. We were shown photographs that were not released for public view.

You really might want to read the article I linked to. He never said steel. I even got Williams original notes from the keynote for the article. There is no mention of "steel" in HIS OWN notes. I e-mailed both of them myself!! Sigh....
Hmm a reputable Structural Engineering publication or an internet poster with unverifiable scans and emails. I will stick with the publication until it retracts its statements.

Kent1
12th October 2007, 12:05 PM
Source?

Also, I checked out the site where these were posted. There are these notes with no source contained only a statement stating they were from Williams. There is not a single email or source from the email from Robertson posted,only a quote. I agree with the 9/11 myths sites final conclusion surrounding the quote that it should be taken with caution, however, when combined with the other factors and evidence, I think it is safe to say there was molten steel, at least in my opinion.

Hey Tam! Remember, that good old debunker line of logic...anything but explosive devices. And again, how many of those excuses reminded survivors of the 1993 truck bombing?


Really? Like the pictures shown to Robertson and company by the FBI that the public didn't see? Or as stated as fact by Williams...



Hmm a reputable Structural Engineering publication or an internet poster with unverifiable scans and emails. I will stick with the publication until it retracts its statements.


Simply E-mail them yourself if you don't believe me.
Mike e-mailed and verified my claims then posted the information.
BTW if you want to contact Mr. Robertson, I would suggest going through Ms. Sawteen See first.

T.A.M.
12th October 2007, 12:06 PM
Swing:

Look elsewhere on the site here, I have told you just like other possibilities, explosives are in there, there is just NO EVIDENCE for them, and NO REASON, where as we know the list of things I have given you were within the WTCs, and hence could have, should have exploded.

TAM:)

CHF
12th October 2007, 12:44 PM
Simply E-mail them yourself if you don't believe me.
Mike e-mailed and verified my claims then posted the information.
BTW if you want to contact Mr. Robertson, I would suggest going through Ms. Sawteen See first.

Swing doesn't like to call people and ask them questions concerning his beliefs. Too risky.

Oh and Swing? I'm still waiting to hear why a basement bomb would have left molten steel.

Mel Odious
12th October 2007, 09:49 PM
Yes, Swing, answering CHF's question would be very helpful to this discussion.

Why would a bomb in the basement (or anywere else for that matter) have left molten steel?


Inquiring minds want to know.

pomeroo
12th October 2007, 10:01 PM
Well Bollyn would be the last source if at all. Did Mark Louiseux retract the statements to him?

I was referring to firefighter testimonies as recorded on video in regards to molten metal flowing like lava and Les Robertson description in his keynote address as summarized in SEAU news. I would also test the intergranual melting found on the steel from WTC 7 as well.

I may be uninformed, but did Les Robertson retract his information as found in his keynote address to the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations Annual Conference as found in SEAU news found here (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)?


You're lying again. One doesn't retract statements one never made. Mark Loizeaux explained that he couldn't have talked about molten steel because he didn't see any molten metal and would not have been capable of identifying it if he had.

eeyore1954
12th October 2007, 10:27 PM
So the collapse of the Towers were an unconventional top-down controlled demolition which utilized experimental thermite cutting charges and blowing out of the basement?

Whoever said the government wasn't redundant?

Up until this point I have been convinced the government had nothing to do with it. But as a former government employee I have to admit that does sound like the way a bureaucracy would do it.

Blender Head
13th October 2007, 12:12 AM
Up until this point I have been convinced the government had nothing to do with it. But as a former government employee I have to admit that does sound like the way a bureaucracy would do it.

I'm glad I unplugged you from The Matrix. :cool:

Blender Head
13th October 2007, 12:14 AM
You're lying again.

Seems like a recurring theme for the Swinger.

Blender Head
13th October 2007, 12:16 AM
Yes, Swing, answering CHF's question would be very helpful to this discussion.

Why would a bomb in the basement (or anywere else for that matter) have left molten steel?


Inquiring minds want to know.

Shhh. We don't like them there 'questions'. :boxedin::crowded::boxedin:

Zlaya
13th October 2007, 03:54 AM
Except that there is nothing in his story that contradicts the "official" story, let alone "destroys" it.

On the other hand, there are parts of his story that contradict Rodriguez's story, but those could easily be attributed to the same disconnects, mis-remembering, and post hoc erroneous "filling in the blanks" that inevitably occurs with witnesses to sudden and traumatic events.

And then, of course, there is the little issue of whether or not this fellow's story is one of the stories that Rodriguez has been trying to sell. Do you know whether it is or not?

Uhm, sure there is. Both this guy, and Rodriguez claim that there was an explosion in the basement floors before the plane hit up high.

Why are you guys ignoring this?

BenBurch
13th October 2007, 04:00 AM
Uhm, sure there is. Both this guy, and Rodriguez claim that there was an explosion in the basement floors before the plane hit up high.

Why are you guys ignoring this?

Because had there been an explosion so long before the aircraft, it would have been the cause of alarms and fire and EMS would have already been dispatched to the WTC in large numbers!

I have listened to Manhattan Fire Dispatch via the log tape for that whole morning and there was NO call to WTC prior to the aircraft.

Therefore there is not the slightest chance that it happened that way. It is simply ruled out by the facts.

Disbelief
13th October 2007, 04:01 AM
Uhm, sure there is. Both this guy, and Rodriguez claim that there was an explosion in the basement floors before the plane hit up high.

Why are you guys ignoring this?

How do they know when the planes hit? How could they know from the basement? Why are you ignoring this?

Hyperviolet
13th October 2007, 04:21 AM
Uhm, sure there is. Both this guy, and Rodriguez claim that there was an explosion in the basement floors before the plane hit up high.

Why are you guys ignoring this?

Same event, as far as i know.
He felt the impact of the plane strike just before he heard it.

RedIbis
13th October 2007, 06:24 AM
Same event, as far as i know.
He felt the impact of the plane strike just before he heard it.

Totally incorrect.

Disbelief
13th October 2007, 06:27 AM
Totally incorrect.

Proof? Also, you haven't explained how either would know that there was an explosion and then the plane impact.

RedIbis
13th October 2007, 06:31 AM
Proof? Also, you haven't explained how either would know that there was an explosion and then the plane impact.

That's not the order of events as Rodriguez reported them.

You wrote, "he felt..."

How do you know what he felt? You can report what he said, perhaps how he contradicted himself, but you can't say what he felt.

Try and be more accurate, and check his own statements for how he describes what happened.

I wouldn't rely on Gravy's paper for "proof" that a superslow magic jet fuel fireball could have been from the same event that cuts Griffith's elevator cable.

Disbelief
13th October 2007, 06:40 AM
That's not the order of events as Rodriguez reported them.

You wrote, "he felt..."

How do you know what he felt? You can report what he said, perhaps how he contradicted himself, but you can't say what he felt.

Try and be more accurate, and check his own statements for how he describes what happened.

I wouldn't rely on Gravy's paper for "proof" that a superslow magic jet fuel fireball could have been from the same event that cuts Griffith's elevator cable.

You are pretty funny. You tell me to try and be more accurate because I can't describe what he felt. Funny, I never said that. It would be Hyperviolet. Try and be more accurate.

By the way, which statements should I check? If the story changes, which should I believe?

RedIbis
13th October 2007, 07:04 AM
You are pretty funny. You tell me to try and be more accurate because I can't describe what he felt. Funny, I never said that. It would be Hyperviolet. Try and be more accurate.

By the way, which statements should I check? If the story changes, which should I believe?


So sorry, but you were answering the post I addressed to HV. Simply replace the second person pronouns with appropriate third person and change the verbs accordingly.

Thanks.

Calcas
13th October 2007, 07:09 AM
How do you know what he felt? You can report what he said, perhaps how he contradicted himself, but you can't say what he felt.


Well, he certainly does contradict himself at the very least. On 9/11 he described it as a "rumble...like moving furniture."

Years later it's a loud "Boom!" An explosion so loud it pushed us upwards, upwards through the air!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttlIXUmd3f0

Most people would think that the immediate recollection would be the most accurate. It's like trying to describe the bank robber you saw. Do you think you could describe him more accurately on the day of the robbery or 5 years later?

16.5
13th October 2007, 08:00 AM
"That's not the order of events as Rodriguez reported them."

You are correct sir! He said it was a rumbling... not like an impact.. like moving furniture.

I mean, you have heard his interview on CNN, RIGHT? That he gave on the day of the incident? You know the first story?

Crungy
13th October 2007, 08:00 AM
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 who has a keen interest in Willie's account of events, but only after he got pissed at the 9/11 commision and then started dramitically changing his story. Why no comments about when Willie was in concert with the official account prior to his hissy fit?

BenBurch
13th October 2007, 09:17 AM
On any witness stand in the nation, Wm. Rodriguez would be torn apart even by the most pedestrian opposition lawyer. His changes of story invalidate ANYTHING he has to say on the matter and DISCREDIT him utterly.

We have no duty whatsoever to consider anything that comes out of his mouth.

A W Smith
13th October 2007, 10:47 AM
How could the mop master believe and have been told "the offcial story" when he gave his interview to CNN the day it happened when there was no offcial story?

BenBurch
13th October 2007, 10:51 AM
How could the mop master believe and have been told "the offcial story" when he gave his interview to CNN the day it happened when there was no offcial story?

Putting on my CTer hat;

Well, obviously he was told it BEFOREHAND, right? So actually he MUST have been IN on the MURDER of 3000 Americans!!!11!!

Taking off my CTer hat.

I need tylenol now.

LashL
13th October 2007, 11:53 AM
Uhm, sure there is. Both this guy, and Rodriguez claim that there was an explosion in the basement floors before the plane hit up high.

Why are you guys ignoring this?

No, he says that the explosion "came from, at first we believed it came from the mechanical room".

His "belief" is simply that. This "belief" does not = a contradiction of the "official" account of events, let alone "destroy" it.

And you didn't address the question in my post - is this fellow's story one of the ones that Rodriguez has been trying to sell? Do you know?

LashL
13th October 2007, 12:05 PM
On any witness stand in the nation, Wm. Rodriguez would be torn apart even by the most pedestrian opposition lawyer. His changes of story invalidate ANYTHING he has to say on the matter and DISCREDIT him utterly.

Indeed.

Particularly damning is the fact that the guy filed a 237 page lawsuit in 2004 that does not even mention the very crux of his subsequent "touring" story, the alleged explosion from below. I mean, come on. Three years and 237 pages and nary a mention of the most important event in what would later become his (ignoble) claim to fame?

Calcas
13th October 2007, 01:43 PM
Indeed.

Particularly damning is the fact that the guy filed a 237 page lawsuit in 2004 that does not even mention the very crux of his subsequent "touring" story, the alleged explosion from below. I mean, come on. Three years and 237 pages and nary a mention of the most important event in what would later become his (ignoble) claim to fame?

What was the crux of his lawsuit?

pomeroo
13th October 2007, 04:45 PM
That's not the order of events as Rodriguez reported them.

You wrote, "he felt..."

How do you know what he felt? You can report what he said, perhaps how he contradicted himself, but you can't say what he felt.

Try and be more accurate, and check his own statements for how he describes what happened.

I wouldn't rely on Gravy's paper for "proof" that a superslow magic jet fuel fireball could have been from the same event that cuts Griffith's elevator cable.


Doesn't your insistence on using the red herring of your invention, the "superslow magic" fireball, indicate that you have lost? As the fireball was neither "magic," nor "superslow," you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

RedIbis
13th October 2007, 08:20 PM
Doesn't your insistence on using the red herring of your invention, the "superslow magic" fireball, indicate that you have lost? As the fireball was neither "magic," nor "superslow," you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

Lost what?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the working thesis that the event which cut the elevator cable is the same event which produces the fireball witnessed in the elevator shaft after Griffith and the woman are rescued?

LashL
13th October 2007, 09:36 PM
What was the crux of his lawsuit?

Well, there was no crux to it, really. It was a rambling cornucopia of all manner of 9/11 conspiracy theories, including all of the usual ones that we have heard from the tinhat brigade for years, such as seismic evidence proves controlled demolitions, WTC7 was deliberately "pulled" by agreement between the FDNY and Larry Silverstein, missiles fired from "pod" planes at the WTC, oxygen starved fires, no infernos, fires not hot enough (citing the photo of Edna Cintron), Hani Hanjour couldn't have flown a 757, a missile struck the Pentagon, insider trading, Flight 93 was shot down, demolitions to get rid of documents, no Arabs or Muslims on the flight manifest, all of the flights could have been intercepted but NORAD stood down, faked phone calls, "microwave weapons fired from a C-130, with some additional allegations of murder, kidnapping, trafficking in humans for forced labour, selling women and children as sex slaves, drug trafficking, embezzlement, securities fraud, large scale credit card and identity theft, anthrax attacks in retaliation for an unflattering photograph of Jenna Bush published in a newspaper, FEMA death camps, shadow government, martial law, some kind of numerology thing that I still don't understand, a bunch of stuff about Tom Clancy novels and the Olympic Games of 1972, 1996 and 2000, Bush stole the election in 2000, diebold, crimes carried out by "the Secret Team" since 1959, treason, crimes against humanity, and more.

Like I said, it was a veritable cornucopia of woo.

SDC
14th October 2007, 09:46 AM
Well, there was no crux to it, really. It was a rambling cornucopia of all manner of 9/11 conspiracy theories, including all of the usual ones that we have heard from the tinhat brigade for years, such as seismic evidence proves controlled demolitions, WTC7 was deliberately "pulled" by agreement between the FDNY and Larry Silverstein, missiles fired from "pod" planes at the WTC, oxygen starved fires, no infernos, fires not hot enough (citing the photo of Edna Cintron), Hani Hanjour couldn't have flown a 757, a missile struck the Pentagon, insider trading, Flight 93 was shot down, demolitions to get rid of documents, no Arabs or Muslims on the flight manifest, all of the flights could have been intercepted but NORAD stood down, faked phone calls, "microwave weapons fired from a C-130, with some additional allegations of murder, kidnapping, trafficking in humans for forced labour, selling women and children as sex slaves, drug trafficking, embezzlement, securities fraud, large scale credit card and identity theft, anthrax attacks in retaliation for an unflattering photograph of Jenna Bush published in a newspaper, FEMA death camps, shadow government, martial law, some kind of numerology thing that I still don't understand, a bunch of stuff about Tom Clancy novels and the Olympic Games of 1972, 1996 and 2000, Bush stole the election in 2000, diebold, crimes carried out by "the Secret Team" since 1959, treason, crimes against humanity, and more.

Like I said, it was a veritable cornucopia of woo.

"Cornucopia of woo"... where is my classical dictionary. I think you are alluding to the wrong classical myth. I suspect you wanted to say, "Augean stables of woo."

Zlaya
16th October 2007, 03:44 AM
Because had there been an explosion so long before the aircraft, it would have been the cause of alarms and fire and EMS would have already been dispatched to the WTC in large numbers!

I have listened to Manhattan Fire Dispatch via the log tape for that whole morning and there was NO call to WTC prior to the aircraft.

Therefore there is not the slightest chance that it happened that way. It is simply ruled out by the facts.

Ooooh, i see so both this guy, Rodriguez, and the guy who had the skin hanging off of his hands, all lied about the basement explosions?

Zlaya
16th October 2007, 03:56 AM
Well, he certainly does contradict himself at the very least. On 9/11 he described it as a "rumble...like moving furniture."

Years later it's a loud "Boom!" An explosion so loud it pushed us upwards, upwards through the air!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttlIXUmd3f0

Most people would think that the immediate recollection would be the most accurate. It's like trying to describe the bank robber you saw. Do you think you could describe him more accurately on the day of the robbery or 5 years later?

Wow, that video is so bad it's not even funny.

The video is comparing something that Rodriguez said on that very day, when he was still in shock, versus something that he said many days later

you 'debunkers' dismiss 'troooofer' explosion testimonies, from cops, firefighters, even taped footage, claiming that those were not legitimate because they were taken on the same day, yet here you are, comparing 1 interview from rodriguez from the same day, versus the story that he gave over and over again later on.

you can't have it both ways, if rodriguez was wrong on that day, then the firefighters, cops and other explosion witnesses are legitimate.

Never mind grasping for straws with McPadden testimony. Minor differences between 2 stories, yet you're calling him a lier.

http://www.truthring.org/?p=5127 = full McPadden story, go ahead call him a lier.

Zlaya
16th October 2007, 04:00 AM
"That's not the order of events as Rodriguez reported them."

You are correct sir! He said it was a rumbling... not like an impact.. like moving furniture.

I mean, you have heard his interview on CNN, RIGHT? That he gave on the day of the incident? You know the first story?

hey, when people were reporting explosions on that same day, you yelled at the tin hat wearing troofers who were using those as *GASP!*evidence of explosions, and demanded that they forget about those, because they were made on the same day, surrounded by confusion and shock

yet here you are, acting like troooofers themselves, grasping at straws, claiming that Rodriguez changed his story. Rumble, versus explosion? After a building fell on top of him? After he witnessed people getting cut in half in front of him? After he was hit by the giant pyroclastic flows of pulverized humans, mercury, thermate, concrete, asbestos, right after the 9/11 events, you think that Rumble vs Explosion has any meaning to him at that point??? Tin hat wearing trooofers, Jesus christ, grasping at straws - but calling a man a lier based on this has got to be a sin somewhere.

He was just pulled from under the rubble, do you think he's going to think straight?

Wow, really sad i gotta say, you guys are nuts

Firestone
16th October 2007, 04:05 AM
Wow, that video is so bad it's not even funny.

The video is comparing something that Rodriguez said on that very day, when he was still in shock, versus something that he said many days later

you 'debunkers' dismiss 'troooofer' explosion testimonies, from cops, firefighters, even taped footage, claiming that those were not legitimate because they were taken on the same day, yet here you are, comparing 1 interview from rodriguez from the same day, versus the story that he gave over and over again later on.

you can't have it both ways, if rodriguez was wrong on that day, then the firefighters, cops and other explosion witnesses are legitimate as well.

Never mind grasping for straws with McPadden testimony.Please read what Rodriguez told NIST on Feb 12 2004.

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.

Source (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pd f)Was Rodriguez still in shock in 2004?

T.A.M.
16th October 2007, 04:06 AM
Never mind grasping for straws with McPadden testimony. Minor differences between 2 stories, yet you're calling him a lier.

http://www.truthring.org/?p=5127 = full McPadden story, go ahead call him a lier.

You mean Kevin McPadden, who changed his story dramaticly from 2006 to 2007, adding in things where the audience liked it?

You mean the Kevin McPadden who came here a week ago, and who gave us an account of what happened that did not involve the "magical" countdown" and many other implicating details? That Kevin McPadden?

Look up username "Kevinprime" on this site and read for yourself.

I trust his testimony (any of the 3-5 version) about as far as I can throw it right now.

TAM:)

Zlaya
16th October 2007, 04:06 AM
"Cornucopia of woo"... where is my classical dictionary. I think you are alluding to the wrong classical myth. I suspect you wanted to say, "Augean stables of woo."

Mmmmm, put up the strawmen, then knock them down, thats the debunker credo.

Great work on that one gents!

T.A.M.
16th October 2007, 04:11 AM
Kevinprime said:

I never "changed" my story! Not every detail pertains to a conversation. I tred lightly when speaking of the Red Cross, because I maintain a membership with them. ( hoping the time I have invested with them would amount to something!) Very simply, the RC rep was listening to a Mutual Aid Channel in Front of our contained Crowd about 5 min after telling me there was a building and/or that could come down in the area due to structural damage. Moments later the RC seperated volunteers. Our team was more skilled and hence needed better explanations. Under the crowds pressure he consulted with the Fireman that were moving out. His findings were unclear and he listened to his radio. Then I can recall him pacing with his radio covered and the notifying the small crowd that remained near the intersection.
As far as my credibility goes... I was discharged from the AF with a General Discharge. Failure to report the witness of a crime, Its one time keeping my mouth costs me dearly. The details are thankfully sealed within my Squadron.
I was just a dumb kid who thought he knew it all... I was busted down to E-1 upon discharge. My duties on 911 were kind of a way making things right as a Soldier, and that was achieved. Other than that it was terrible.
I never was Elite like a PJ, I was a Med-Tech (kinda like a LPN) 1325hrs.TRN
In fact I opted out second day of PJ tryouts. This may be confused with on the second day I was absorbed to the CMR where these events are only verifiable from other Soldier's verification only. I.E. David Millier etc. I was kind of privileged to work with SpecOPs inside this Task Force. This and I have had search and rescue training, and I was elite while I worked with them in the days after the attack. This is how believed role performed was titled. I understand the events were larger than life and have no need to be a "wannabe" If anyone has questions they can email me at kevprime@hotmail.com
At the time, I was a network engineer dotcomm' er that tried to go out shining like the medic I once was, before I gave up on serving mankind. Today, I have renewed faith and now serve in EMS. Blood-tox shows heavy exposure linked to WTC signature, along with many lung related injuries, and stroke. I prevent further effects with Meds thankfully.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94832


In his above account of what happened I do not see a count down.

He says he did not change his story, yet in 2006 he says only that he heard pulsatile-like conversation, then in 2007 it has become a definitive countdown.

His account changed in other areas as well.

Until he comes here and explains, to our satisfaction, why his story DID change, and which account is the real one, I WILL CALL HIM A LIAR.

TAM:)

DGM
16th October 2007, 04:13 AM
Ooooh, i see so both this guy, Rodriguez, and the guy who had the skin hanging off of his hands, all lied about the basement explosions?
How did they know it was before the crash, they were in the basement? You do know that people further up in the towers didn't even know?

T.A.M.
16th October 2007, 04:14 AM
Thanks for admitting that troofers are "grasping at straws" though Zlaya, on that one you actually got it right.

TAM:)

pomeroo
16th October 2007, 04:30 AM
Ooooh, i see so both this guy, Rodriguez, and the guy who had the skin hanging off of his hands, all lied about the basement explosions?


You are having trouble grasping the concept that an explosion would not cause the type of injury you describe. The guy with his skin hanging off had been burned. Ponder that last sentence very hard.

WildCat
16th October 2007, 04:49 AM
giant pyroclastic flows
You really shouldn't use words whose meaning you don't know... :dl:

SDC
16th October 2007, 06:34 AM
Mmmmm, put up the strawmen, then knock them down, thats the debunker credo.

Great work on that one gents!

In reference to Cornucopia (= horn of plenty, a Good Thing), vs Augean stables (a real mess, a Bad Thing) ... don't blame me if you didn't receive a decent education.

BenBurch
16th October 2007, 06:52 AM
Ooooh, i see so both this guy, Rodriguez, and the guy who had the skin hanging off of his hands, all lied about the basement explosions?

Rodriguez lies. The other fellow might simply be wrong owing to his trauma.

BenBurch
16th October 2007, 06:55 AM
Mmmmm, put up the strawmen, then knock them down, thats the debunker credo.

Great work on that one gents!

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya, Princess Bride

http://www.agileproductdesign.com/blog/images/inigo.jpg

Arkan_Wolfshade
16th October 2007, 07:42 AM
Mmmmm, put up the strawmen, then knock them down, thats the debunker credo.

Great work on that one gents!
And how, exactly, would either of those two statements qualify as a strawman logical fallacy?