Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Totovader]

hey totovader

before responding in full i would really appreciate a quick confirmation - am i correct to infer from this statment

"he was assuming something fell in the loading dock, because at the time it was the only thing that made sense to him. Without the knowledge of a plane impact, the only other thing that could cause that much damage would be "something falling in the loading dock". That's not what actually happened, it was just Morelli making an educated guess at the time."

that the first event morellini heard and felt was the airoplane impact? a yes or no would be fantastic.

Since you appear to have abandoned this "event in the loading dock" claim- are we to assume you no longer believe that it is true?

If you admit that Morelli was not describing an event in the loading dock- how does that impact your claim?

 

[Totovader]

- there is no evidence of explosives because if there were explosives the hard evidence exploded.

This is only the 2nd time in my life I have ever heard this absurd claim. To believe that explosives just disappear and leave no trace is fundamentally retarded. To then claim that this lack of evidence is actually evidence, is a whole new level of stupid.

- 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

Assuming this were true (it's not) that decision would have been made on research prior to the NIST investigation- including the accounts of the field researchers who investigated over 40,000 tons of the steel and found no evidence of explosives where there should have been.

Furthermore, this claim completely contradicts your first one. If there's no evidence of explosives ever, then no test would suffice. Magic explosives, I guess.

- 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 .

It would only be reasonable if you assume the following:

1) That we never learn from attacks and beef up security. (Pretty stupid assumption)
2) That their goal was accomplished (it was not).
3) That it was less expensive or less risky than their alternative plan (it was not).

So... no, it's not reasonable.

- 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"

Do you have any evidence of this? When conspiracists have made this claim before, there was no evidence to support it besides one reporter making this claim without any justification (a reporter who is known for embellishing the stories he's reporting on IIRC).

- 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.

Explosions are not evidence of explosives. Explosions are not unusual in an office fire (or an event as spectacular as this). Furthermore, testimony is not evidence- it's testimony. We've been over this.

If testimony were facts- then we would have contradicting facts- and that makes no sense. Obviously, you need evidence supporting eyewitness accounts, whenever possible.

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.

I challenge you to find a single person who claims to have heard EXPLOSIVES. Notice how you changed your claim in one paragraph from "explosions" to "explosives".

Did you hope no one would notice?

 

[Belz...]

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

That's a very nice way of putting it that happens to be an appeal to emotions.

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.

Millions of feet per second ?

So high explosives can cover several kilometers in a second ? Is that it ?

 

[Belz...]

OH SORRY, i was off by a couple of zeroes

Yeah, three orders of magnitude seems small, doesn't it ?

because I'm trying to single handedly fend off an attack of bullies in a hostile forum where I can only type and research simultaneously at the same time.

Wow. Attacking forum members while whining about the forum features. If you came here with any knowledge of the subject matter, people who've been arguing this subject for almost two years now wouldn't take an exasperated tone with you.

The exact detonation velocity is not relevant.

Of course. When you're wrong, what you were wrong about is NEVER relevant.

What IS relevant, and what I am 100% correct in saying is that high explosives can cut through steel and destroy a hydraulic press, but burning jet fuel cannot, especially not from almost 100 floors away through floors walls, and multiple elevator shafts.

Actually, that IS irrelevant.

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.

That's an argument from conspiracy. Or something. There, I've just invented a few fallacy.

This deck is as stacked as it gets.

Critical thinking is pretty annoying, isn't it ?

 

[Belz...]

- there is no evidence of explosives because if there were explosives the hard evidence exploded.

Obviously you don't know much about explosives, then.

- 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.

Yeah, except this time everybody saw huge airliners crash into the buildings.

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 .

Why ?

 

[brasil]

You show me your evidence first.. oh, you don't have any either. no wonder.

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence," and I agree 100% with thewholesoul's point that circumstantial evidence is all anyone on these forums is working with, and that by any standard, legal or otherwise, it IS evidence. Rodriguez, Morelli, Pecoraro, Cachiolli... all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives. To deny this is to flat out deny evidence. No one here is going to find any steel to test for explosives residue because the evidence was consciously destroyed by the USG. When evidence in the largest crime in American History is destroyed, something is very, very wrong.

When I see the conspiracy theorists who believe the government's conspiracy demonstrate irrefutable, hard evidence that 19 Arab hijackers directed by Usama Bin Laden were responsible for every aspect of the attacks (or even some aspects), then I'll work harder to come up with some "evidence" of my own.

I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story, because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.

Let me simplify what I just said: Totovader, Gravy, and others on this board have no hard evidence either. This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence. Gravy's papers are filled with links to the same open source information we all have access to

My post about how "nice" these "terrorists" were when their meticulously planned operation began at a time of day that would maximize media coverage yet minimize casualties, is one very powerful piece of circumstantial evidence that "rabid Jihadist suicide bombers who want to kill as many Americans as possible" were not behind the attacks.

If you're so in love with the "official story" then you should also believe G.W.Bush and his clan wholeheartedly when they tell us that's who the perpetrators were.

 

[beachnut]

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence," and I agree 100% with thewholesoul's point that circumstantial evidence is all anyone on these forums is working with, and that by any standard, legal or otherwise, it IS evidence. Rodriguez, Morelli, Pecoraro, Cachiolli... all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives. To deny this is to flat out deny evidence. No one here is going to find any steel to test for explosives residue because the evidence was consciously destroyed by the USG. When evidence in the largest crime in American History is destroyed, something is very, very wrong.

When I see the conspiracy theorists who believe the government's conspiracy demonstrate irrefutable, hard evidence that 19 Arab hijackers directed by Usama Bin Laden were responsible for every aspect of the attacks (or even some aspects), then I'll work harder to come up with some "evidence" of my own.

I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story, because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.

Let me simplify what I just said: Totovader, Gravy, and others on this board have no hard evidence either. This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence. Gravy's papers are filled with links to the same open source information we all have access to

My post about how "nice" these "terrorists" were when their meticulously planned operation began at a time of day that would maximize media coverage yet minimize casualties, is one very powerful piece of circumstantial evidence that "rabid Jihadist suicide bombers who want to kill as many Americans as possible" were not behind the attacks.

If you're so in love with the "official story" then you should also believe G.W.Bush and his clan wholeheartedly when they tell us that's who the perpetrators were.

You have no evidence. So what is new. You claim you are not a truther, but you have no idea what happen, you have no evidence to support your ideas so you make up a post about nothing? What is your story?

19 terrorist did it, you missed it. Did you miss it? What is your problem, you say you are not a truther but spew truther logic and junk.

6 years and you still are not good at figuring out 9/11. If you were on flight 93 maybe you would have some incentive for figuring out 9/11 quickly like the passengers did in minutes. You have had 6 years and all you can do is whine about things, yet flight 93 heroes figure it out and took ACTION. If you have some ideas on 9/11 you must supply the proof, you could than take action and be better at 9/11 topics.

 

[brasil]

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. If youtube had existed back then I'm sure we would have put some videos up on the web the way people do know. Search youtube for "ANFO" - that's the type of high explosive we are told was used in the OK bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing. You don't need college level math skills to work with this stuff, you just soak ammonium nitrate in fuel oil, confine it (due to the nature of the high explosive reaction, which is initiated by a shockwave of a critical velocity, it hardly even needs to be confined), and pop in a blasting cap with a long fuse. Go watch the youtube videos to see how easy it is. I bet it wasn't too hard to drive a car or two into the WTC parking garage with at least some quantity of this stuff in the trunk. I'm not saying for a second that's what happened, I'm just saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high, and anyone arguing otherwise ought to remove their head from the sand.

 

[Minadin]

Witness testimony isn't actually circumstantial evidence. It's witness testimony. Witnesses can testify about events that are circumstantial or direct in nature to a crime or occurance, but it's not generally viewed as something that's as reliable as circumstantial evidence that can be gathered objectively (such as finding a weapon on the person of a suspect in a murder) or direct evidence of a crime (such as video recordings of the event).

To my understanding, most of the evidence in most criminal trials is circumstantial. "Hard" evidence is, to my understanding, either direct or circumstantial evidence that is not witness testimony and has a demonstrable chain of custody, which means it can be legally admitted in a trial. It seems like you're using it in place of the term "direct" evidence.

It doesn't really matter who you believe carries the burden of proof. It's entirely possible to be convicted of a crime based solely on circumstantial evidence, and in fact, it's quite common. I understand that some legal scholars consider circumstantial evidence to be the best sort, because it's much more difficult to fabricate and easier to verify.

In any case, Brasil, it's nice to see that you've dropped the "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just have some questions . . . I'm not sure and I'm on the fence" bit. Honesty is the best policy and all.

 

[Totovader]

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. If youtube had existed back then I'm sure we would have put some videos up on the web the way people do know. Search youtube for "ANFO" - that's the type of high explosive we are told was used in the OK bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing. You don't need college level math skills to work with this stuff, you just soak ammonium nitrate in fuel oil, confine it (due to the nature of the high explosive reaction, which is initiated by a shockwave of a critical velocity, it hardly even needs to be confined), and pop in a blasting cap with a long fuse. Go watch the youtube videos to see how easy it is. I bet it wasn't too hard to drive a car or two into the WTC parking garage with at least some quantity of this stuff in the trunk. I'm not saying for a second that's what happened, I'm just saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high, and anyone arguing otherwise ought to remove their head from the sand.

Is this a joke?

 

[Totovader]

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence," and I agree 100% with thewholesoul's point that circumstantial evidence is all anyone on these forums is working with, and that by any standard, legal or otherwise, it IS evidence. Rodriguez, Morelli, Pecoraro, Cachiolli... all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives. To deny this is to flat out deny evidence. No one here is going to find any steel to test for explosives residue because the evidence was consciously destroyed by the USG. When evidence in the largest crime in American History is destroyed, something is very, very wrong.

When I see the conspiracy theorists who believe the government's conspiracy demonstrate irrefutable, hard evidence that 19 Arab hijackers directed by Usama Bin Laden were responsible for every aspect of the attacks (or even some aspects), then I'll work harder to come up with some "evidence" of my own.

I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story, because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.

Let me simplify what I just said: Totovader, Gravy, and others on this board have no hard evidence either. This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence. Gravy's papers are filled with links to the same open source information we all have access to

My post about how "nice" these "terrorists" were when their meticulously planned operation began at a time of day that would maximize media coverage yet minimize casualties, is one very powerful piece of circumstantial evidence that "rabid Jihadist suicide bombers who want to kill as many Americans as possible" were not behind the attacks.

If you're so in love with the "official story" then you should also believe G.W.Bush and his clan wholeheartedly when they tell us that's who the perpetrators were.

Here we see a perfect demonstration of the ambiguous middle ground fallacy: brasil wants to pretend that claiming no one has any evidence means that he's right.

This- of course- is self-defeating, and rejects the scientific principles he was trying to bastardize earlier.

 

[SDC]

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. If youtube had existed back then I'm sure we would have put some videos up on the web the way people do know. Search youtube for "ANFO" - that's the type of high explosive we are told was used in the OK bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing. You don't need college level math skills to work with this stuff, you just soak ammonium nitrate in fuel oil, confine it (due to the nature of the high explosive reaction, which is initiated by a shockwave of a critical velocity, it hardly even needs to be confined), and pop in a blasting cap with a long fuse. Go watch the youtube videos to see how easy it is. I bet it wasn't too hard to drive a car or two into the WTC parking garage with at least some quantity of this stuff in the trunk. I'm not saying for a second that's what happened, I'm just saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high, and anyone arguing otherwise ought to remove their head from the sand.

Is there anything he can't do? Anything he doesn't know?? I'd swoon if, but I'm not.

 

[dbalsdon]

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.

Yep. That might've been their hypothesis... for a couple of minutes, until someone probably went into the car park/basement and saw that there was no sign of a vehicle explosion.

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence," and I agree 100% with thewholesoul's point that circumstantial evidence is all anyone on these forums is working with, and that by any standard, legal or otherwise, it IS evidence. Rodriguez, Morelli, Pecoraro, Cachiolli... all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives. To deny this is to flat out deny evidence. No one here is going to find any steel to test for explosives residue because the evidence was consciously destroyed by the USG. When evidence in the largest crime in American History is destroyed, something is very, very wrong.

Stuff and nonsense!

Here's a brief list of the "Evidence," that you say we don't have, in support of the hypothesis that damage in the basement levels was caused by jet fuel, and jet fuel alone:

• Rigorous estimate of the jet fuel contained in the aircraft prior to impact
• Modeling demonstrating that a large fraction of it would remain in the structures
• Architectural diagrams identifying three large pathways from the impact zone to the basement
• Witness statements saying that jet fuel was smelled, both throughout the Towers and in the vicinity of the basement explosions
• Witness statements that fireballs were seen in the basements
• Witness statements of occupants and rescue workers that three elevators were cut by impact, and fell to the basement, leaving a clear pathway
• Burns on victims consistent with jet fuel deflagration
• Witness statements that are wholly consistent with jet fuel deflagration
• Calculations demonstrating the energy of such a deflagration is easily consistent with the level of damage
• No evidence of major structural damage, such as totally destroyed floors and ceilings, that would be required for a 1993 WTC Bombing style attack
• Seismic records that demonstrate no detonations at any time
• No witness statements consistent with the sound of a distinct detonation event
• Precedent in the form of the 1945 Empire State Building aircraft impact

You, on the other hand, indeed do not have any evidence. As a result, your attempt to equivocate my position with yours is absolute poppycock.

Heck, you won't even tell me what you think your mythical bomb did. You accepted fireballs, so where does the fireball stop and your bomb begin? You've already entered the realm of gradualism.

Unless you can support your belief with evidence, we're done here.

 

[brasil]

Now I've put money on the table. I can do anything, including gamble.

You have no evidence. So what is new. You claim you are not a truther, but you have no idea what happen, you have no evidence to support your ideas so you make up a post about nothing? What is your story?

19 terrorist did it, you missed it. Did you miss it? What is your problem, you say you are not a truther but spew truther logic and junk.

6 years and you still are not good at figuring out 9/11. If you were on flight 93 maybe you would have some incentive for figuring out 9/11 quickly like the passengers did in minutes. You have had 6 years and all you can do is whine about things, yet flight 93 heroes figure it out and took ACTION. If you have some ideas on 9/11 you must supply the proof, you could than take action and be better at 9/11 topics.

You show me conclusive proof (and that means a primary source with a "verifiable chain of custody" - thanks Minadin) of ANYTHING that happened on flight 93 and i'll personally send you $100. Just to let you know, a written transcript released by the FBI does not cut it, nor does an audio recording you found on the web.

Just like my other questions about minimizing casualties, and the destruction of evidence, I find it more than a little interesting that while the USG was quoting Todd Beamer's alleged battle cry in their war propaganda, they were simultaneously suppressing the flight data recordings and when they finally did show it to the families years later, they were not even allowed to take notes. Why don't you explain the reasoning behind that.

That's a direct question for you, since you don't seem to be bothering with answering what I'm actually asking: Why did the USG feel the need to suppress the flight data and voice recordings from flight 93, which have still not been released to this day, and only let the families listen to the recording once and not let them take notes? You tell me right now how that fits into your grand theory of 9-11.

And $100, while not a huge sum, is on the table for that other challenge. You can hold me to that.

 

[beachnut]

By the way, I know a lot about explosives. When I was a teenager me and my friends were interested in things that go BOOM, just like a lot of teenagers who are too smart for their own good and enjoy chemistry. If youtube had existed back then I'm sure we would have put some videos up on the web the way people do know. Search youtube for "ANFO" - that's the type of high explosive we are told was used in the OK bombing and the 1993 WTC bombing. You don't need college level math skills to work with this stuff, you just soak ammonium nitrate in fuel oil, confine it (due to the nature of the high explosive reaction, which is initiated by a shockwave of a critical velocity, it hardly even needs to be confined), and pop in a blasting cap with a long fuse. Go watch the youtube videos to see how easy it is. I bet it wasn't too hard to drive a car or two into the WTC parking garage with at least some quantity of this stuff in the trunk. I'm not saying for a second that's what happened, I'm just saying the likelihood and ease of using explosives on 9-11 is very high, and anyone arguing otherwise ought to remove their head from the sand.

So, I blew up my back yard with sugar and KNO3, who cares? But this post make you a truther. You lied, you said you were not a truther, or was that Zayla?

OMG, they found sugar and there is K, N, and O at the WTC. It was a sugar bomb!!! Wake up and smell the sugar burning...

 

[Lurker]

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.

PErsonally, I doubt the terrorists were looking for more than "hitting" the Pentagon. I doubt they were concerned about which side might do the most damage or where the SecDef was. At best, they probably cased it to determine the best avenue of approach for the plane.

The more you investigate and research, hte higher your likelihood of being discovered becomes. Trying to get teh SecDef via a plane crash would be rather silly. You have no idea what his schedule is, where he is if he is in the PEntagon, precise maneuvering control over the plane. No, I seriously doubt they would bother with that level of detail in the plot. Of course, looking back as you are they may have wished to do some things better.

 

[Totovader]

You show me conclusive proof (and that means a primary source with a "verifiable chain of custody" - thanks Minadin) of ANYTHING that happened on flight 93 and i'll personally send you $100. Just to let you know, a written transcript released by the FBI does not cut it, nor does an audio recording you found on the web.

Just like my other questions about minimizing casualties, and the destruction of evidence, I find it more than a little interesting that while the USG was quoting Todd Beamer's alleged battle cry in their war propaganda, they were simultaneously suppressing the flight data recordings and when they finally did show it to the families years later, they were not even allowed to take notes. Why don't you explain the reasoning behind that.

That's a direct question for you, since you don't seem to be bothering with answering what I'm actually asking: Why did the USG feel the need to suppress the flight data and voice recordings from flight 93, which have still not been released to this day, and only let the families listen to the recording once and not let them take notes? You tell me right now how that fits into your grand theory of 9-11.

And $100, while not a huge sum, is on the table for that other challenge. You can hold me to that.

Dibbs! Dibbs! Dibbs!

 

[stateofgrace]

When I see the conspiracy theorists who believe the government's conspiracy demonstrate irrefutable, hard evidence that 19 Arab hijackers directed by Usama Bin Laden were responsible for every aspect of the attacks (or even some aspects), then I'll work harder to come up with some "evidence" of my own.

And your comment on the indictments, trials and jailing of 911 terror suspects in Europe is? I missed it the first time round.

I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story, because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.

Wrong there is no official story, just hundreds and hundreds of witness accounts, forensic evidence physical evidence and confessions from Al Qaeda who have continually admitted to carrying out this attack.

Let me simplify what I just said: Totovader, Gravy, and others on this board have no hard evidence either. This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence. Gravy's papers are filled with links to the same open source information we all have access to

No you are dealing pure speculation and have not offered a single fact to back it up.

My post about how "nice" these "terrorists" were when their meticulously planned operation began at a time of day that would maximize media coverage yet minimize casualties, is one very powerful piece of circumstantial evidence that "rabid Jihadist suicide bombers who want to kill as many Americans as possible" were not behind the attacks.

No it is not, it is pure speculation backed by neither fact nor evidence

If you're so in love with the "official story" then you should also believe G.W.Bush and his clan wholeheartedly when they tell us that's who the perpetrators were.

I cannot stand Bush, so stop resorting to the oldest childish excuse in the twoofer book; yes I called you a twoofer, because you are sunbeam. You are not talking to children; you are amongst adults, start behaving like one and back your speculation, claims innuendoes with some form of facts.

 

[Lurker]

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.

Sure, 3 flights per day. But how many can you coordinate such that five are leaving at the same approximate time? If they were not coordinated, the chances of the later ones accomplishing their mission would be expected to drop dramatically.