Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Arus808]

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

actually it does. if you want to say that bombs were placed in the bottom of the tower,s you'll have to give a reason why "bombs in the basement" would affect a top down collapse, which is what happened in both towers on 9112001

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

Actually , you've been the one playing dumb, and its ANNOYING us.

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.

Which proves you dont understand controlled demolition as the video you posted allude to nothing that you claim.

Seriously, what gives with you guys?

We've been aksing for your proof, of which you haven't provided. dont blame us if we are getting a wee bit testy with your attitude and your non-performance.

All you have demonstrated is that you think that 911 is a laughing matter.

 

[brasil]

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?

I'm not saying anything definitively IS or ISN'T anything. That's what you people can't grasp. You all seem to have made up your mind and are all in defensive mode (it's a state where you're not likely to integrate any new information), I actually have not made up my mind. Nothing anywhere has convinced me that 9-11 happened the way the 9/11 Commission and USG said it did, and nothing has convinced me with any level of certainty that it happened some other way.

As to reports of structural damage, the first one that comes to mind (for the third time i'm posting this now), Mike Pecoraro says he saw "rubble" and "i know people who got reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." These walls may or may not have been load-bearing, but when walls are coming down, we can't exactly rule out "structural damage" can we?

 

[Garb]

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?

No, what you don't understand is that there were basement explosions in those demos for a reason. You have provided no proof to back up the motive for there being explosives in the basement. If the basement explosions have nothing to do with the collapse, then why put them in there in the first place?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

. . .lots of bombs can go off in the lower portions of a concrete and metal structure with nothing collapsing, . . . What part don't you understand?

Well I understand that the market square arena was nothing like the WTC towers. do you understand that?

Tell me, are you claiming that those explosives placed on the floor of the arena were analogous to the so-called explosions in the WTC basement?

What did the floor of the arena support, other than basketball players?




----to anyone else, did the market square arena have an ice rink in it as well?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

As to reports of structural damage, the first one that comes to mind (for the third time i'm posting this now), Mike Pecoraro says he saw "rubble" and "i know people who got reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." These walls may or may not have been load-bearing, but when walls are coming down, we can't exactly rule out "structural damage" can we?

Were the walls concrete or drywall?

 

[T.A.M.]

I think trying to decifer the minutia of witness testimony is fruitless in this case, and in many others from that day.

It is one thing to state that because many witnesses watched flight 175 hit the tower, that it did...this is reasonable. People, hundreds, perhaps thousands, were looking up at the towers at that time.

It is another thing to pick apart, near word by word, the description of events as recanted after the fact, from a man who was likely panicked, or at the very least, confused by what was going on.

I think yes, we can take from his account that there was considerable damage done in certain areas. I also think that the press was not where he knew it to be when he arrived. I also think we can get from his story that there were burn victims near the elevator. Beyond this, I think the majority of his story has to be taken within the context of a man in the midst of chaos, with people running about, noises from all directions, smoke perhaps, crying, yelling, screaming...I mean come on.

TAM

 

[DGM]

I'm not saying anything definitively IS or ISN'T anything. That's what you people can't grasp. You all seem to have made up your mind and are all in defensive mode (it's a state where you're not likely to integrate any new information), I actually have not made up my mind. Nothing anywhere has convinced me that 9-11 happened the way the 9/11 Commission and USG said it did, and nothing has convinced me with any level of certainty that it happened some other way.

As to reports of structural damage, the first one that comes to mind (for the third time i'm posting this now), Mike Pecoraro says he saw "rubble" and "i know people who got reconstructive surgery because walls hit them in the face." These walls may or may not have been load-bearing, but when walls are coming down, we can't exactly rule out "structural damage" can we?

In the basement of a steel framed skyscraper? Yes we can.

 

[Totovader]

I'm not saying anything definitively IS or ISN'T anything. That's what you people can't grasp.

Maybe "we" can't "grasp" that because it's total fluff.

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.

So what you're saying is that absolutely nothing is anything.

Sure, whatever you say.

 

[brasil]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

 

[brasil]

To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

 

[DGM]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

Nuisance bombs sure, but if you are talking about structural damage, no way.

 

[Totovader]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks

You have done nothing but harass people in this thread- including me- with your absurd boasting and insults. You blow so much hot air that I'm starting to think the energy needs to be harnessed for better use.

and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me,

Your own statements ridicule you? That's crummy.

Incidentally- I did not quote mine- all of your statements were taken in context and reproduced in sequential order. If you have a problem with your own comments, take it up with the author.

not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

Besides this being a burden of proof fallacy- on the "theoretical level" many people (myself included) have pointed out that "bombs in the basement" makes no sense whatsoever. If facts and logic do not settle your outrage, what will?

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

Ambiguous middle ground fallacy- and also a blatant lie.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN.

If we're going to play this game- it COULD HAVE BEEN:

1) Elvis.
2) Pomeroo's special reindeer with explosive antlers.
3) Aliens.
4) A fluctuation in the space-time continium because Marty went too far back in time and accidentally made out with one of the future wives of the designers.
5) Nothing- the buildings are still there.

I could go on...

The COLD HARD FACT that there is equal evidence for all these claims- including this "bombs in the basement" nonsense should tell you something about it's possibility.

I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there,

I think you just shot yourself in the foot on this one. You know there's proof, you just don't have "access" to it?

Huh?

but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

Everyone has- you just keep ignoring it.

This is a common Truther regression- it goes from "I have proof" to "I have no proof, which is proof" to "there cannot be proof" to "the proof is part of the cover-up" to "there may be proof" to JAQing off.

 

[brasil]

Nuisance bombs sure, but if you are talking about structural damage, no way.

For a forum that asks me for "proof" every 5 minutes, we are to accept your statement because you say so? This is the best you people can do? Personally attack me and then conclude with "because I said so?"

 

[Garb]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

Possibility does not equate to actual evidence.

The burden of proof is on you. This is like the statement "prove that God does not exist." It is a fallicious argument and it doesn't prove your position correct.

 

[Totovader]

To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

If this were true, then the building would have weakened at the bottom, first.

As we can see from the following video- NOTHING ABOUT YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE:



The collapse was not "almost free-fall", it did not weaken at the bottom, and it makes no sense at all to have bombs in the basement an hour before the horrible event shown here.

 

[T.A.M.]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

come on brasil, you are smarter than this....you know I cannot prove there were no leprachauns in the building either...

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

In the vast realm of possibilities, of course, but the evidence is extremely sparse, almost negligible.

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

Like I said, lots of things "could" have been used...but there is little to no evidence for them. There is a tonne of evidence pointing to the planes, the damage they caused, the damage from the subsequent fires, all leading to the collapse of the WTCs.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

Just checking in to see if those corroborating witnesses have turned up yet.

...

Okay, maybe in 2008 then.

 

[stateofgrace]

I submit that bombs could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that bombs were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as R.Mackey, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement are an "absurd" proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that bombs COULD NOT HAVE been there.

I submit that little green men with lazers could have been in the WTC basements. The key words are COULD HAVE BEEN. I don't expect to EVER have access to proof that little green men were there, but it has not been hard to show that they COULD HAVE been there. I invite anyone, such as brazil, who has confidently stated that bombs in the basement is a realitist proposition, to step up and show proof of that assertion - that little green men COULD NOT HAVE been there.

 

[brasil]

Totovader: show me one, just ONE, post you have made in this thread that has even a tangential relationship to the thread topic, which i'll remind you is Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Stop personalizing the argument. That goes for everyone.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Garb]

Totovader: show me one, just ONE, post you have made in this thread that has even a tangential relationship to the thread topic, which i'll remind you is Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims? That and G.F.Y.

Pot, meet kettle.