Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Totovader]

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachi.../used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine (2).jpg

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

 

[brasil]

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

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

 

[Totovader]

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

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

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

. . .pulverize a hydraulic press. . .

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

 

[brasil]

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

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

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

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

 

[Arus808]

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


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


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


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

 

[Arus808]

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

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

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

 

[T.A.M.]

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

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

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

TAM

 

[brasil]

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

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

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

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

 

[Arus808]

These can't be moved by an explosive force?

 

[Totovader]

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

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

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

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

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

I asked why you think the forces would be different.

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

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

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

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

Again, I'm baffled.

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

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

 

[Arus808]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[brasil]

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

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

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

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

 

[Totovader]

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

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

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

Holy crap.

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

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

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

Seriously- that's absurd.

 

[Totovader]

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

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

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

 

[Arus808]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[brasil]

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

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



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

I asked why you think the forces would be different.



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



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

Again, I'm baffled.



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

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

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

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

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

 

[brasil]

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






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

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







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

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

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

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachi.../used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine (2).jpg

 

[Totovader]

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

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

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

All completely irrelevant.

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

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

It's that simple.

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

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

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

Come on- think it through.

 

[Arus808]

I don't even know where to begin with you because you really have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

Actually totovader is very much in the know, about what he is tlaking about ; however, you are simply pulling #$#@ out of your #@#@$#.

Had you even just googled "high explosives" vs. "low explosives" and did 2 minutes of reading you would not have tried to call my statement about the differences between them "circular reasoning."

yet you can't even bother to read hte NIST report where they found no evidence of ANY explosives used.

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

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

and has nothing to do with what happened on 911. Who cares what each does. when none of them EXISTED in the towers.

A fireball rushing down an elevator shaft from 100 floors up is not capable of reducing a hydraulic press to rubble. Period.

Please back this claim up with evidence; care to source how you came to this conclusion? What is your expertise on judging the explosive nature of jet fuel when ignited? do you know what the equivalent of force of ignited fuel would cause?

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

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

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

and Controlled demolitionists, who work with explosives DISAGREE with you.
Why is that?

o your research then get back to me.

WE have. DO your research by talking to an explosives EXPERT. NOT what you assume

I bring this up because I think Mike Pecararo's testimony is one of the major holes in the "official story" that no explosives went off in the WTC.

NO his story is NOT a major hole in the BEST explanation (ITS NOT THE OFFICIAL STORY!), of what happened that day. YOU are simply showing that you are taking his claims out of context.