Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[ElMondoHummus]

ElMondo, I haven't seen any accounts that noted the specific types of injuries you're looking for. All the basement injuries that I'm aware of are

1) Leg and back injuries to occupants of elevators that stopped suddenly
2) People being knocked down by the explosions and having things fall on them
3) Flash burns from the fireballs

Kenneth Johannemann:
[/url]

Had the victim been close enough to a high explosive to be burned like that, he'd be dead and the elevator and shaft would have been blown to bits.

ALL of the burn injury descriptions are similar, and several people on higher floors describe the jet fuel dripping on them, getting in their eyes, and inhaling it as they were burned.

I don't know if I'll ever be able to fathom why the conspiracists don't believe these victims.

That's still helpful. You're right, BTW: If someone was close enough to get burned, but not get (sorry for the blunt terminology; my vocabulary's escaping me today) blown to bits, then that does argue against a high explosives blast.

On the other hand, I guess the obvious response would be built on Brasil's earlier post: That jet fuel was did reach the basement and could've caused a fireball concurrent with the purported demolitions explosion. How that would not have been noticed, I don't know, but it is a counter.

I think this is simply going to be a "weight of evidence" argument again.

Anyway, thanks. If you come up with something else (yes, I'll review your already posted work ), let me know.

 

[R.Mackey]

That's still helpful. You're right, BTW: If someone was close enough to get burned, but not get (sorry for the blunt terminology; my vocabulary's escaping me today) blown to bits, then that does argue against a high explosives blast.

For the record, there is one way for people to be burned, but not blasted to pieces, by a pure high explosive blast. But it hardly applies here.

If the explosive is so freaking enormous that it creates a substantial radiative hazard at great distances, it is barely possible for people to suffer flash burns but still have enough time to enter protective structures (provided they're available) before the shock front arrives. As I've mentioned before in a different context, an example can be seen in the video and images from the Sailor Hat test, where the initial fireball literally ignites exposed paint and other surfaces a second or so before the shock washes over the vessel. A shock that, incidentally, is a mere 6 PSI, although it is both sharper and faster than a deflagration and thus is not entirely comparable.

Obviously this didn't happen in the WTC Towers.

 

[Totovader]

Woooow, wait, hold your horses, do we have a 'debunker' accusing a 'smelly tin hat wearin troofer' of playing semantics, when all the 'debunkers' do all the time is play semantics?

The double standards are getting better and better here.

Give me a single example of a "debunker" playing semantics.

 

[GStan]

Find me the law that says that if you're going to make that assertion. I've already admitted quite a few times on this board that I doubt I can produce any new "evidence" in this debate, only a potentially more plausible theory.

Haven't you realized that "legal" and "illegal" are what G.W.Bush says they are at any given moment? There is nothing legally set in stone preventing those recordings from being released. There are also FOIA requests, and a responsibility to the public in a supposedly free society that evidence about an event that triggered two wars should be seen by all. That trumps your weak "privacy" argument.

While the information may be in the hands of the government for the purposes of the investigation, they are the property of the airline and the government has no right to release them to anyone except back to the airline. Did you not notice how much quicker the Pentagon security video was available compared to the gas station and hotel videos? The government could release the Pentagon surveillance tape at its discretion because it is the owner. And what about those family members who heard the tapes and were not allowed to take notes, are they calling for a new investigation? Do they believe the recording is a fake or doctored? Do they suspect nefarious government complicity in 9/11? These are all questions any honest truther would pursue. But truthers will not pursue something like this any further. Their investigative philosophy is to #1) research (loose definition) something to the point where it superficially casts doubt on the prevailing explanation for the events of 9/11 and the more important one #2) STOP!!! Never research anything past the point of casting doubt, lest you find information that might logically explain away said doubt in a non-sinister manner.

 

[Belz...]

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence,"

Most truthers are.

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.

It IS evidence, but it's only circumstantial.

all those guys and many more witnesses have described the sounds, blasts, and potential after effects of the use of high explosives.

And yet NONE of the effects of such blasts are evident. Isn't that odd ?

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.

Evidence, please.

When I see the conspiracy theorists who believe the government's conspiracy

Nice way to put it so that you'd be evil if you did believe it.

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.

So... basically you want us to do the work for you.

I believe the burden of proof for evidence rests squarely with believers of the Official Story

That's not the way it works, bloke.

because it is this myth which is driving our foreign policy and the shredding of our Constitution.

Circular reasoning.

This forum and every one like it, including the Loose Change forum, is dealing in speculation and circumstantial evidence.

If that were true, wouldn't you agree that it's a little dumb accusing people of murder without evidence ?

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.

What the hell are you babbling about ?

If you're so in love with the "official story"

Why is it that every damn truther on this planet can't comprehend why someone could possibly disagree with him unless they're paid shills ?

By the way, I know a lot about explosives.

<giggle>

 

[Belz...]

Haven't you realized that "legal" and "illegal" are what G.W.Bush says they are at any given moment?

Oh, please. This is the kind of nonsense factoid that you just claim is true and expect us not to question.

If Bush can make things legal and illegal at a whim, then why would he go through all that trouble (that is, the supposed inside job) to go to Iraq ?

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM, Gravy, and others:

On the note above (his quote I've excerpted), I've been trying to research the concept of a high explosives blast occuring under the WTCs from the point of view of injuries reported. Specifically, I've been trying to locate sources that discussed seeing any cases of tympanic (eardrum) or alveolar (lung) overpressure injuries. I've only found a few reports here and there of ear injuries - although a couple only specified one eardrum, and no accompanying respiratory distress (which doesn't rule out explosives, but does argue against it), and I'm completely striking out on lung overpressure injuries; I'm simply finding no reported cases.

But, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as the saying goes, so I'm wondering if you two (or anybody else) has any info regarding the specific issue of overpressure injuries. If, as Brasil purports, explosives were used, we should be seeing a plethora of reports of such tympanic or alveolar injuries, like we do in the reportage of the Madrid bombings (here's one example of many, from "Emergency Radiology": http://www.springerlink.com/content/k323178048673w12/fulltext.pdf), the bus bombings in Israel during the Intifada, or the Oklahoma City event. Here's my question: Do you know of any sources that deal specifically with listing the injuries treated during 9/11?

And TAM (bolding and coloring to catch your attention ), since you're a doctor, I was hoping to get your help on this specific find: This report from "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly" Titled "Rapid Assessment of Injuries Among Survivors of the Terrorist Attack on the World Trade Center — New York City, September 2001" (Link: http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/mmwrvol51no1_01112002.pdf). It's a short article, unfortunately, but I was interested in eliciting comment from you on it. From what I as a layman can read from it, there's a conspicuous absence of any overpressure injuries recorded in that study, but I may have missed something due to my lack of expertise. Would you mind taking a peek at it when you have the time and seeing if you can find anything regarding that?

BTW, only the first few pages are relevant; the rest of that link includes completely off topic articles (Childrens' nutrition in Mongolia, an Arizona Salmonella outbreak, etc.) that should just be ignored.

Nice article;

A few things on the article, but first on your quest to find occurences of "overpressure (barotrauma) injuries.

1. While you may find some occurences, it will likely be way under reported, for these reasons
- It was rapid triage and treatment.
- The respiratory ailments, in addition to having similar presentations, regardless of dust/smoke or trauma based, would not likely have been differentiated in the statistics. They would likely all be grouped as "respiratory" disorders.

2. If a fair bit of dust was able to get into the external meatus of the patients ears, color differentiation, and possibly tympanic membrane visualization may have been impossible, especially in a rapid "triage and treat" or "scoop and run" situation. This would severely limit the diagnosis and recording of tympanic barotrauma (although a patient who is completely deaf from their injury is HIGHLY suspicious of barotrauma).

3. The presence of barotrauma findings confirms overpressure state, but their absence does not refute such a state.

4. I would guess (from my work in the ER) that if the patient could respond to your questions, and hence could hear you speak, then their ears were unlikely to be checked. If the barotrauma were sufficient to cause TM rupture bilaterally, and hence make them severely hearing impaired, it may OR may not have been documented, and an ear exam MAY have occurred.


As for the paper,

1. I see no recording of ear based illness/trauma.
2. Alveolar injury from barotrauma if diagnosed (unlikely in a rapid assessment), was likely included in the "Inhalation" section, without further distinction. In all likelihood, there was NO distinction made beyond the illness/injury being Inhalation based (ie respiratory based illness/injury).

If you have any other questions on the specifics, feel free, I will help if I can.

It would be nice to have a follow up study, to see of those patients treated and released, were any further injuries or illness seen afterward, not originally detected in the rapid treatment.


TAM

 

[Totovader]

brasil has a consistency problem

Ad hominem / appeal to pity

I'm trying to single handedly fend off an attack of bullies in a hostile forum

Totovader and Arus808 are off by a lot more than some zeroes. They're not even worth replying to because they're obviously still in high school...

Do you get a free pass on here that allows you to make "personal attacks" without your snide posts getting moved to "post purgatory" as some of mine were?

So far you haven't taken a crack at any of the more difficult points I've raised, only attempted to ridicule me using truly childish methods.

Consider it beer money for your high school's graduation party, if you can even win it from me.

Most of the other posts have devolved into an irrelevant pissing contest, dont you think?

So when's your high school graduation party, anyway? You the same year as Totovader?

ipse dixit fallacy:

you people would be surprised how popular of a guy I am in NYC. Posting to this forum may just be a fun diversion for today, but if I don't get more respect I may be forced to go back to my A-list partying. Here it is 12:40 am on a wednesday night, and I'm actually getting irritated because of posts on a forum where no one agrees with me when I could be out dancing with my hot girl friends.

I work for Columbia and I know how unpopular anyone is who asks too many questions about 9-11.

I was one of the first people to have the balls to question the "war on terror" at Columbia University in public forums

I have considerably more knowledge across these disparate subjects (off the top my head) than almost anyone I know.

My accomplishments in life stand on their own, and I don't need to prove them to anyone on this forum.

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.

My admittedly limited understanding of the physics involved still tells me[...]

Did I mention that i'm only 12 years old with an I.Q. of 170?

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.

By the way, I have a really great resource [about explosives] available to me who I'm going to talk to this weekend.

No rational person would interpret that as me claiming to be an "expert."

No true Scotsman fallacy:

I'm not a "truther" or a "CTer" and I've never met one of those people.

Burden of proof fallacy:

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.

And, I don't even know what this qualifies as- special pleading?:

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence,"

 

[Gravy]

And, I don't even know what this qualifies as- special pleading?:

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence,"

Special pleading? Looks like ordinary whining to me. Of all the truthers who've passed through here, I'd say brasil is amongst the top five worst-informed and most-opinionated – and that's saying a lot. I'll give a few more of his posts a look, but if there's no improvement I'll be putting him on ignore.

 

[chillzero]

What was the name of that betting man from England? Who decided, after losing, to cancel the wager?

Malcolm Kirkman.

 

[DavidJames]

And, I don't even know what this qualifies as- special pleading?:

I'm so tired of hearing the "debunking" camp in this debate always asking for "evidence,...

Possibly, but most definitely a stundie.

 

[SDC]

Malcolm Kirkman.

Ah yes. A classic. He came across as something of a braggart (among other things), and he too offered wagers. I wonder whether there is a connection between the two tendencies; to brag, and to bet.

Don't know myself. Never saw much point in either one. But seriously, I wonder whether bragging links to betting links to conspiracist thinking, or does this stretch speculation too far?

 

[brasil]

How bombs in the basement an hour before collapse could make perfect sense

It is possible that both bombs and jet fuel were in the basement. We have pretty good evidence that a fireball existed down there so the jet fuel has some corroborating evidence behind it. I don't really see any evidence of bombs but the lack of evidence does not rule out the possibility.

Let's assume there were bombs down there. It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that the blast in the basement occurred soon after the plane hit. Let's assume it was a demolitions blast from explosives. Aren't truthers arguing that explosives brought down the WTC in a sort of controlled demolition? If so, why would bombs intended to take down (or pull if you'd rather) the WTC go off an hour or so before the collapse? Sorry, I don't know any demolitions that use bombs an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition.

Am I wrong on something here?

Yes, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about something, and that's that bombs can't go off "an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition." There is no reason to believe that a military-style, clandestine demolition should follow the same script and timeline as a commercial demolition. Perhaps you've seen that demolition video on youtube where they take out a huge stadium. Here's a clip of a different one than I was thinking of, but I want everyone to play close attention to how many bombs go off in the basement area first, and then only at the end of the sequence do they take down the main structure. I see no reason why they couldn't have waited hours to initiate the final sequence after the initial bombs went off in the lower level:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EunHU7g8E9g&feature=related

I think the perfect analogy for this is that game with wood blocks where you build a tower and see how many blocks you can remove before the tower falls down. Everyone who has played that game knows you can remove a lot of key parts of a structure before the whole thing comes down. This is exactly the methodology that would be behind setting off bombs in the lower levels of the WTC at the time of jet impacts, and then delaying any other potential bombs until it was time for the full collapse. Once again, I am not saying this is what happened, but I am once and for all explaining the crystal clear logic behind setting off bombs in the WTC an hour before the collapse, with the jet plane impact as a diversionary strategy (I believe the impacts definitely contributed to the collapse, of course). If this doesn't make sense to someone, I would be happy to explain it more, but I think I've been very clear.

 

[brasil]

Special pleading? Looks like ordinary whining to me. Of all the truthers who've passed through here, I'd say brasil is amongst the top five worst-informed and most-opinionated – and that's saying a lot. I'll give a few more of his posts a look, but if there's no improvement I'll be putting him on ignore.

That's what I would expect of someone with your agenda, bias, and worldview to do. You haven't bothered to actually address the points I'm making because they're too difficult to answer in your world of double-standards. I'm very informed, and remember, I was studying 9-11 seriously from the following day until about 4 years later. I did not watch "Loose Change" and suddenly have an epiphany. I had already come to similar conclusions as Loose Change on my own before the film ever existed.

All you can do is make a blanket statement of YOUR opinion that I'm "opinionated" and one of the "worst-informed." Here's an assignment for you with a little more substance than making yet another personal attack against me: find one flaw in the theory I just proposed in the post just before this one. And if you put me on "ignore" - good riddance to you. I've got your papers to read and your lemming-like cult following to talk to. In real life I assure you we wouldn't even be friends. And I wouldn't invite you to any parties.

 

[DGM]

Yes, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about something, and that's that bombs can't go off "an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition." There is no reason to believe that a military-style, clandestine demolition should follow the same script and timeline as a commercial demolition. Perhaps you've seen that demolition video on youtube where they take out a huge stadium. Here's a clip of a different one than I was thinking of, but I want everyone to play close attention to how many bombs go off in the basement area first, and then only at the end of the sequence do they take down the main structure. I see no reason why they couldn't have waited hours to initiate the final sequence after the initial bombs went off in the lower level:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EunHU7g8E9g&feature=related

I think the perfect analogy for this is that game with wood blocks where you build a tower and see how many blocks you can remove before the tower falls down. Everyone who has played that game knows you can remove a lot of key parts of a structure before the whole thing comes down. This is exactly the methodology that would be behind setting off bombs in the lower levels of the WTC at the time of jet impacts, and then delaying any other potential bombs until it was time for the full collapse. Once again, I am not saying this is what happened, but I am once and for all explaining the crystal clear logic behind setting off bombs in the WTC an hour before the collapse, with the jet plane impact as a diversionary strategy (I believe the impacts definitely contributed to the collapse, of course). If this doesn't make sense to someone, I would be happy to explain it more, but I think I've been very clear.

So are you saying that the explosives in the basement actually failed. There was no real structural damage reported. Only partition walls and that sort of thing.

Do you know of any reports of structural damage?

 

[Garb]

Yes, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about something, and that's that bombs can't go off "an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition." There is no reason to believe that a military-style, clandestine demolition should follow the same script and timeline as a commercial demolition. Perhaps you've seen that demolition video on youtube where they take out a huge stadium. Here's a clip of a different one than I was thinking of, but I want everyone to play close attention to how many bombs go off in the basement area first, and then only at the end of the sequence do they take down the main structure. I see no reason why they couldn't have waited hours to initiate the final sequence after the initial bombs went off in the lower level:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EunHU7g8E9g&feature=related

I think the perfect analogy for this is that game with wood blocks where you build a tower and see how many blocks you can remove before the tower falls down. Everyone who has played that game knows you can remove a lot of key parts of a structure before the whole thing comes down. This is exactly the methodology that would be behind setting off bombs in the lower levels of the WTC at the time of jet impacts, and then delaying any other potential bombs until it was time for the full collapse. Once again, I am not saying this is what happened, but I am once and for all explaining the crystal clear logic behind setting off bombs in the WTC an hour before the collapse, with the jet plane impact as a diversionary strategy (I believe the impacts definitely contributed to the collapse, of course). If this doesn't make sense to someone, I would be happy to explain it more, but I think I've been very clear.

Brasil, all of these demolitions cause the bottom to collapse first. The lower structures showed no sign of collapse until the top portions hit it, which wouldn't have made any difference anyways except for a few floors.

Unless you can prove that the explosions in the basement could have affected the collapse which started at the top, your speculation doesn't mean anything.

 

[brasil]

Brasil, all of these demolitions cause the bottom to collapse first. The lower structures showed no sign of collapse until the top portions hit it, which wouldn't have made any difference anyways except for a few floors.

Unless you can prove that the explosions in the basement could have affected the collapse which started at the top, your speculation doesn't mean anything.

Ah..... this has nothing to do with "explosions in the basement" affecting the "collapse which started at the top."

Seriously, are you guys just pretending to be dumb just to annoy me? How you can even ask such a question when the video I posted demonstrates the concept irrefutably: that lots of bombs can go off in the lower portions of a concrete and metal structure with nothing collapsing, and then the upper levels can be triggered to crash down on top of the still-standing foundation. Watch the video again. Read my post again. Seriously, what gives with you guys? I can't imagine making it any clearer than I did. I showed it's technically possible, I related it to what happened on 9-11, and I illustrated it with the perfect metaphor of a child's game. What part don't you understand?

 

[Belz...]

ipse dixit fallacy:

you people would be surprised how popular of a guy I am in NYC. Posting to this forum may just be a fun diversion for today, but if I don't get more respect I may be forced to go back to my A-list partying. Here it is 12:40 am on a wednesday night, and I'm actually getting irritated because of posts on a forum where no one agrees with me when I could be out dancing with my hot girl friends.

I hadn't caught that one. That's priceless.

 

[Belz...]

Possibly, but most definitely a stundie.

Already there.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I'm pretty sure you are wrong about something, and that's that bombs can't go off "an hour ahead of the scheduled demolition." There is no reason to believe that a military-style, clandestine demolition should follow the same script and timeline as a commercial demolition.

They'd still have to make some sense.

That's what I would expect of someone with your agenda, bias, and worldview to do. You haven't bothered to actually address the points I'm making because they're too difficult to answer in your world of double-standards.

Coming from one who has such a talent for ignoring what he doesn't like, that's actually pretty ironic.

Seriously, are you guys just pretending to be dumb just to annoy me?

Actually, I think YOU'RE pretending to be smart just to win a point.