Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[beachnut]

No, it is stacked with FACTS, next time stay on subject, next time bring facts...

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

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

I'll probably post here again at some point in the future, but this has been a monumental waste of a day.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

This deck is as stacked as it gets.

Too smart for all, but still thinks 9/11 truth might have something? That makes all your smarts on 9/11 go right down to stupid. There are no facts to support any ideas from 9/11 truth. You are full of junk. You post stuff that does not support the point you are trying to make. Try again is 6 years after you get out of high school and get close to getting a PhD in something, you are unable to research 9/11 very well. Maybe nearing a PhD some rational thought will seep into your research and presentation.

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

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

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

 

[DGM]

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

 

[Dog Town]

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

Pesky math! STUNDIE?

 

[R.Mackey]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[brasil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[brasil]

Pesky math! STUNDIE?

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

 

[SDC]

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

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

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

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

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

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

Dave

 

[beachnut]

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

Explosives that knock concrete walls on to people in their faces would kill them. Sorry, you are the weakest poster on this subject I have seen here in a long time, getting hung up on a tiny thing in the basement that was not due to EXplosives. You are hung up on the damage to the WTC due to terrorist running planes into the towers. You are now trying to do what? What does your stuff mean? Please spell out your idea, what it is and what it means in the big picture? You need to have a goal, a purpose for wasting your superior mentality on this subject. Gee, why not attack the fact some terrorist flew the planes, you know only super smart pilots can fly those jets so perfectly into a building. Why not attack the BS pilot stuff? You must have superior flying skills too, right? Why start with some damage to the basement which did not even give anyone a concussion from the blast of the non explosives in the base ploy mainly supported only by the idiots of 9/11 truth?

 

[beachnut]

incite into why brasil is a believer of woo

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

That makes physics an abstraction (like an approximation of the real world F=ma, is an approximation, and nothing breaks the law of physics very much, except the minds of woo, like you) used to explain the real world. Gee, you do not use facts because?

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

 

[DGM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Norseman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They were not load bearing and not reinforced.

But according to Vincent Dunn's table you only need 2-3 PSI to knock down cinderblock wall like the one in the picture above. Well within the R.Mackey's worst case scenario.

EFFECTS OF EXPLOSION DESTRUCTIVE PEAK PRESSURE
GLASS SHATTERING : 0-5 PSI
FIREFIGHTER KNOCKDOWN: 1.PSI
WOOD PARTITION COLLAPSE: 1-2 PSI
CINDERBLOCK WALL COLLAPSE: 2-3 PSI
BRICK WALL COLLAPSE: 7-8 PSI
FIREFIGHTER LUNG DAMAGE: 15 PSI
THRESHOLD FOR FATALITIES: 35 PSI
50% FATALITIES: 50 PSI
99 FATALITIES: 99 PSI

 

[DGM]

Damn Norseman I was just looking for that thread.

I'm to slow.

It's a good read Brasil lots of info.

 

[brasil]

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

DGM:

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

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

R.Mackey:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[brasil]

Damn Norseman I was just looking for that thread.

I'm to slow.

It's a good read Brasil lots of info.

reading it now.... looks interesting.

 

[Lurker]

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

Since neither of us are seismologists, it would be prudent for you to call Columbia and attempt to query them on their readings. To try and attempt to interpret the readings yourself or by someone else who has no expertise in such would be inadvisable.

 

[Lurker]

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

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

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

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

 

[Lurker]

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

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

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

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Back to a previous topic: Jet fuel explosion, and resultant damage

(Bolding Mine)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lurker]

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

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

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

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