Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[beachnut]

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

Our Nukes do not operate like the Soviet Nukes, too bad you would just make a splat!!! Like the Pentagon was stronger than the WTC, the Nuke is stronger than the Pentagon. Splat! Oops, a plane was smashed by the concrete at the Nuke, the dumb terrorist "brasil" was the pilot. Not a smart move, not a smart post. Oops. you should have studied our nukes which make electricity, to see why we are not the China Syndrome you feel for by watching too many fiction movies. You would have been the weak link terrorist, as you are the weak link in the 9/11 truth movement, like the rest of the members! no facts, no idea what happen on 9/11, good job; next time study for a few years.

 

[GStan]

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

<snip>

My bolding. I find it rather disturbing to know that there are people in the world with such warped worldviews and morality that they could somehow rationalize characterizing the killing of 2880 people as 'kind'.

By the way, an estimated 16,000 additional workers were in the towers when the first plane hit and managed to escape the towers, as another obvious act of kindness.

 

[beachnut]

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

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

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

What does it mean to you? If you think explosives were used in the basement, you have to come up with proof. There is none. Not one thing that shows explosives in the basement on 9/11. Since you have no new evidence, just hearsay with no real time line. But more over, you have no evidence of explosives. Zip. No facts, no evidence, no explosives.

As you gather more information, ( did you do any research in the first place; do you know what research is?) your ideas on 9/11 will fail to produce evidence of explosives in the basement. So what is it about 9/11 that you have? Got some facts? No, you have zero facts and evidence to support explosives. You have failed, and I think I was correct again. No make up some reason why you have to go away and can not find the facts to save your pathetic position of ignorance on 9/11.

 

[Lurker]

My bolding. I find it rather disturbing to know that there are people in the world with such warped worldviews and morality that they could somehow rationalize characterizing the killing of 2880 people as 'kind'.

By the way, an estimated 16,000 additional workers were in the towers when the first plane hit and managed to escape the towers, as another obvious act of kindness.

I wonder if the hijackers were limited by trying to find five flights all leaving at or near the same time from Logan all fully fueled for a cross country flight. My guess is trying to find the five planes that meet that criteria may have excluded most times of day.

Then again, perhaps there was another reason the hijackers chose the morning. Better able to blend in? More chaos at the airport? Those are a couple possibilities that I thought of and I am not casing and planning it all. We can't know what the rationale for every detail of hte plan was.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Why don't both of you just keep missing the point. You bet I would've cased out the Pentagon as just one way of determining where the big guys' offices are. It's not ridiculous, it's called reconnaissance.

Yeah, right.

On the one hand, CTers claim that the pentagon was the most secure and protected building in the world, and then on the other hand, Brasil thinks he could have just walked up to the building and by asking the guards at the front desk, he would have been able to locate the SecDef office.

 

[thewholesoul]

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

In the spirit of dialogue i will try to reply as best i can to your questions. In hope that you can reply in kind.

Given the fact that we are attempting to establish whether the testimony of morellini and others is or is not consistent with the official explanation, his testimony is not just relevant but essential to the objective of our dialogue. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

It is relevant to determine the sequence of events morellini describes because the official explanation also describes a certain kind and sequence of events and as already stated the objective of our dialogue is to establish whether morellini’s testimony is or is not consistent with the offical explanation. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

So returning to my question: are you saying that the first event morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? It is a simple yes or no.

I provided my reasons why i believe the sequence of events is relevant.

 

[Totovader]

In the spirit of dialogue i will try to reply as best i can to your questions. In hope that you can reply in kind.

Given the fact that we are attempting to establish whether the testimony of morellini and others is or is not consistent with the official explanation, his testimony is not just relevant but essential to the objective of our dialogue. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

It is relevant to determine the sequence of events morellini describes because the official explanation also describes a certain kind and sequence of events and as already stated the objective of our dialogue is to establish whether morellini’s testimony is or is not consistent with the offical explanation. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

So returning to my question: are you saying that the first event morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? It is a simple yes or no.

I provided my reasons why i believe the sequence of events is relevant.

Strawman- I never made any comments or had any questions as to whether Morelli's testimony is "relevant" or not. My question was to whether the sequence of events (or his recollection of them) is relevant.

Seriously- I'm getting kind of tired of you dodging this question. The sequence of events as Morelli remembers them should be pretty clear- but I am gosh darned curious as to why you think it matters. You don't seem to understand the futility of your claims- or maybe you do, and that's why you can't answer...

If Morelli's testimony was inconsistent with the official story- are you suggesting that everything he says gets thrown out automatically? Is that what you're trying to imply?

 

[thewholesoul]

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

In the spirit of dialogue i will try to reply as best i can to your questions. In hope that you can reply in kind.

Given the fact that we are attempting to establish whether the testimony of morellini and others is or is not consistent with the official explanation, his testimony is not just relevant but essential to the objective of our dialogue. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

It is relevant to determine the sequence of events morellini describes because the official explanation also describes a certain kind and sequence of events and as already stated the objective of our dialogue is to establish whether morellini’s testimony is or is not consistent with the offical explanation. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

one reason you said morellini's account is irrelevant is because he said "Of course you didn't know what it was, you're assuming something just fell over in the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big".

but because he didnt know what it was - does not mean - that what he experienced was the impact of a plane and not something else. if you disagree please provide your reasons.

if the impact of a plane is your explanation of what he first experienced while walking near the freight car in b4 then please confirm that with a yes or a no.

 

[Totovader]

In the spirit of dialogue i will try to reply as best i can to your questions. In hope that you can reply in kind.

Given the fact that we are attempting to establish whether the testimony of morellini and others is or is not consistent with the official explanation, his testimony is not just relevant but essential to the objective of our dialogue. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

It is relevant to determine the sequence of events morellini describes because the official explanation also describes a certain kind and sequence of events and as already stated the objective of our dialogue is to establish whether morellini’s testimony is or is not consistent with the offical explanation. If you disagree please provide the reasons why.

one reason you said morellini's account is irrelevant is because he said "Of course you didn't know what it was, you're assuming something just fell over in the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big".

but because he didnt know what it was - does not mean - that what he experienced was the impact of a plane and not something else. if you disagree please provide your reasons.

if the impact of a plane is your explanation of what he first experienced while walking near the freight car in b4 then please confirm that with a yes or a no.

Strawman- I never made any comments or had any questions as to whether Morelli's testimony is "relevant" or not. My question was to whether the sequence of events (or his recollection of them) is relevant.

I'm going to have to continue to repeat myself until you answer the question and cease with the strawman arguments. It's pointless to debate myself.

 

[thewholesoul]

Strawman- I never made any comments or had any questions as to whether Morelli's testimony is "relevant" or not. My question was to whether the sequence of events (or his recollection of them) is relevant.

Seriously- I'm getting kind of tired of you dodging this question. The sequence of events as Morelli remembers them should be pretty clear- but I am gosh darned curious as to why you think it matters. You don't seem to understand the futility of your claims- or maybe you do, and that's why you can't answer...

If Morelli's testimony was inconsistent with the official story- are you suggesting that everything he says gets thrown out automatically? Is that what you're trying to imply?

yes his recollection of the sequence of events is relevant BECAUSE the offical explanation also descibes a sequence of events and the OBJECTIVE of our dialogue is to establish whether or not the sequence of events he describes is or is not consistent with the official sequence of events and vice versa. that is my reason. now your job is to say either this reason i provided is valid or invalid - thats how rational dialogues are supposed to work.

instead of providing reasons why you consider the sequence of events in morellini's testimony irelevant you claim that i cannot answer the question. i answered your question with a reason - "the sequence of events is relevant BECAUSE the offical explanation also descibes a sequence of events and the OBJECTIVE of our dialogue is to establish whether or not the sequence of events he describes is or is not consistent with the official sequence of events and vice versa." is that reason invalid or not?

why on earth would i argue that everything he says that is inconsistent with the official story should be thrown out??? first we have to establsh whether or not it is inconsistent and to do that i need you to confirm what your version of the offical story is. what is your explanation for what he experienced. second if my GOAL is establish an inconsistency between morellini's testimony and the the offical explanation pertaining to the sequence of events within that testimony then it makes no sense what so ever that i would want his testimony to be thrown out.

so again to avoid repitition - can you confirm that your explanation of the first event that morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? a simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[brasil]

Yeah, right.

On the one hand, CTers claim that the pentagon was the most secure and protected building in the world, and then on the other hand, Brasil thinks he could have just walked up to the building and by asking the guards at the front desk, he would have been able to locate the SecDef office.

A) I'm not a "truther" or a "CTer" and I've never met one of those people. I don't even know what they are. You seem to know a lot about those people though. Are you one of them? Perhaps a "CTer" who believes the government's "CT theory?"

B) Don't put words in my mouth: I don't claim anything you're saying. Especially your idiotic assertion that "i think i could just walk up to the guards." Try responding to things I'm actually saying. What I know is how to get into the head of one of these "terrorists" and try to start thinking logistically about how I would approach the problem of attacking the Pentagon. I think the FBI has a job for me somewhere.

We've all heard reports of Arab terrorists "casing out government buildings" so it would be an option to sit in a car with tinted windows and high-powered binoculars and observe the building. If that didn't yield any valuable intel about which part of the building to target, then perhaps I could start calling the Pentagon and socially engineer my way into getting an idea of where the SecDef or Joint Chiefs (or is that the same thing?) offices are. While all this was going on, I could search the internet for open source information. I vaguely remember a story back in 2001 or 2002 about the USG removing thousands (or more) of pages off .gov servers which contained information meant for the public, but that they decided could help terrorists.

Stop trying to make me out as "dumb" by putting words into my mouth. You're not showing much intelligence by doing so.

 

[beachnut]

so again to avoid repitition - can you confirm that your explanation of the first event that morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? a simple yes or no would suffice.

Present your proof of explosives. OH, you have none. You have zero facts and evidence to support explosives in the basement, this make your attempt to make up lies pathetic considering the results of 19 terrorist on 9/11 who were better at cutting throats than you are at finding facts to support lies of 9/11 truth. Pathetic; and you offered no explanation for being disrespectful trying to make up lies about 9/11. Have a great conversation on fantasy BS about 9/11.

 

[thewholesoul]

yes it is relevant - for example - rodriguez changed the sequence of events. first he said that he heard an explosion in the basement at the same moment he heard a plane impact above. later he said that he heard the explosion in the basement first. you see why the sequence of events is relevant?

i will keep providing reasons to your question eventhough you do not have the courtesy to respond to mine, eventhough you provide no reasons to invalidate the reasons i provide when answering your question.

 

[westprog]

my father (the structural engineer)

Good God. That will be some Christmas.

 

[brasil]

I wonder if the hijackers were limited by trying to find five flights all leaving at or near the same time from Logan all fully fueled for a cross country flight. My guess is trying to find the five planes that meet that criteria may have excluded most times of day. We can't know what the rationale for every detail of hte plan was.

With all of the spectacular feats they accomplished that day, which had never been anticipated in the history of the world (oh, wait, that's just what Bush on Condi told us... that might not be true come to think of it), somehow I don't think finding a flight that left an hour or two later was going to be a big issue when the payoff of that decision was killing an additional 50,000 American residents*. In my experience flying cross country, there are always at least 3 flights per day on any given airline.

*(The word "residents" chosen carefully, since someone thought it was "bright" to accuse me of ignoring all of the foreigners who died in the attacks. If you're working in this country, you're a "resident" or you're illegal.)

 

[brasil]

Good God. That will be some Christmas.

Legos. Erector Set. Chemistry Set. Subscription to ENR (Engineering News Record). I can't wait for xmas! Did I mention that i'm only 12 years old with an I.Q. of 170?

 

[Totovader]

yes his recollection of the sequence of events is relevant BECAUSE the offical explanation also descibes a sequence of events and the OBJECTIVE of our dialogue is to establish whether or not the sequence of events he describes is or is not consistent with the official sequence of events and vice versa. that is my reason. now your job is to say either this reason i provided is valid or invalid - thats how rational dialogues are supposed to work.

This argument is circular- however. You're saying it's relevant because it's relevant. I am pointing out that whether he heard the airplane hit first or heard the elevators coming down first does not change the fact that the airplane hit, nor does it (in either sequence) logically result in "bombs". This is the fact that you continue to ignore.

instead of providing reasons why you consider the sequence of events in morellini's testimony irelevant you claim that i cannot answer the question. i answered your question with a reason - "the sequence of events is relevant BECAUSE the offical explanation also descibes a sequence of events and the OBJECTIVE of our dialogue is to establish whether or not the sequence of events he describes is or is not consistent with the official sequence of events and vice versa." is that reason invalid or not?

I have continually commented (even prior to this thread) that the sequence of events is irrelevant because 1) Morelli's recollection could be in error (although I am not suggesting that it is, I am merely pointing out that it's a possibility in eyewitness accounts) and 2) that in either sequence of events, there is no "bomb". This is a fact you continue to ignore.

why on earth would i argue that everything he says that is inconsistent with the official story should be thrown out???

This seems to be the crux of your argument. If Morelli describes it one way- it's inconsistent with the "official story" and therefore "irrelevant". This is your strawman against my argument, by the way- not my argument.

first we have to establsh whether or not it is inconsistent and to do that i need you to confirm what your version of the offical story is.

There are no "versions" of the official story. Nor would it be relevant as to what "my version" would be. I go where the evidence takes me. Thus, if Morelli was describing bombs (as Rodriguez attempts to) we would be discussing the evidence supporting that claim. Since he does not, you are instead trying to throw out all of his testimony because you consider it to be inconsistent with the "official story". What you are dancing around (besides the facts) is the obvious stolen concept fallacy in play- here. In order to deny what Morelli says in toto (no pun intended), you would have to already have a conclusion based on that evidence.

what is your explanation for what he experienced. second if my GOAL is establish an inconsistency between morellini's testimony and the the offical explanation pertaining to the sequence of events within that testimony then it makes no sense what so ever that i would want his testimony to be thrown out.

If that was indeed your goal. The end result- however- is obviously your efforts to throw his entire testimony out. Remember: this discussion originally began as a documentation of witnesses that corroborate Rodriguez's claims. So far, there have been none.

so again to avoid repitition - can you confirm that your explanation of the first event that morellini experienced was the impact of a plane? a simple yes or no would suffice.

I will be forced to repeat myself, here (especially considering I've already answered the question in the comment you're replying to). It's your argument- you need to explain why it's relevant. Simply claiming that all accounts have to be absolutely consistent with the "official story" is an absurd argument, being that it would rely on witnesses possessing perfect memory, or omniscience- something that no humans possess.

 

[Totovader]

yes it is relevant - for example - rodriguez changed the sequence of events. first he said that he heard an explosion in the basement at the same moment he heard a plane impact above. later he said that he heard the explosion in the basement first. you see why the sequence of events is relevant?

i will keep providing reasons to your question eventhough you do not have the courtesy to respond to mine, eventhough you provide no reasons to invalidate the reasons i provide when answering your question.

Context dropping. Morelli is not describing bombs, Rodriguez is. Furthermore, we can see from Rodriguez's claims, that they make no sense. Therefore, those specific claims, can be taken with a metric ton of salt.

 

[DGM]

With all of the spectacular feats they accomplished that day, which had never been anticipated in the history of the world (oh, wait, that's just what Bush on Condi told us... that might not be true come to think of it), somehow I don't think finding a flight that left an hour or two later was going to be a big issue when the payoff of that decision was killing an additional 50,000 American residents*. In my experience flying cross country, there are always at least 3 flights per day on any given airline.

*(The word "residents" chosen carefully, since someone thought it was "bright" to accuse me of ignoring all of the foreigners who died in the attacks. If you're working in this country, you're a "resident" or you're illegal.)

Would you mind pointing out these " spectacular feats" in another thread? The plan they used was not that tough to complete.

 

[thewholesoul]

this is the last time i will respond to you my friend.

- there is no evidence of explosives because if there were explosives the hard evidence exploded.
- The NIST made a conscience decision not to test for explosive residue at the WTC complex. This would have proven one way or another whether an explosive device was used in the sub levels of the North Tower, however, no test by any Federal Agency was conducted
- The historical record of terrorism against America is another valid reason to explore the ED hypothesis. I'm sure you are all aware of the 1993 WTC attack using a truck bomb in the subbasement at the WTC. If terrorists could use this tactic of placing an explosive device in their target once, isn’t it reasonable to suggest they might try that tactic again, especially when combined with the use of planes? The reasonable person would think so .
- The FBI's original working hypothesis was a car or trucked packed full of explosives and detonated under the towers at the same time as the impact. I find that yet another reason to test for explosive residues, especially in the basement. You can view the USA Today news report about the FBI's theory: google "do the orders still stand: the case for explosives at the world trade centre"
- testimony is a form of evidence and many people reported hearing explosions. if you agree that testimony is a form of evidence - circumstantial evidence - then your assertion that i have zero facts or evidence supporting the case for explosives in the basement makes no sense what so ever. let me repeat that - it you agree that testimony is a form of evidence your assertion that there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis that explosives were used makes no sense what so ever BECAUSE many people that were in the building claim to have heard explosives.

have a nive day beachnut.