Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Totovader]

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.

I started the thread, ace.

And I'm REPLYING to your posts. If you want to claim I'm off topic in replying to your posts, then you might want to check yo' self, before you wreck to' self.

 

[DGM]

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?"

Where did I personally attack you?

I say no way because the size of the structural members in the basement are such that Pecararo would not be there to report it. The truck bomb in '93' was huge and still didn't do the trick. It's all a matter of size. To damage a framing member that's several inches thick and extends to bedrock takes a very large explosion. This means a very large shock wave, Right?

 

[Pookster]

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

...

Okay, maybe in 2008 then.

I've come to the conclusion that all he has to offer is that we can never be 100% sure of anything. But, I'm not 100% sure of that.

 

[Pookster]

I started the thread, ace.

And I'm REPLYING to your posts. If you want to claim I'm off topic in replying to your posts, then you might want to check yo' self, before you wreck to' self.

Too funny.

 

[stateofgrace]

I've come to the conclusion that all he has to offer is that we can never be 100% sure of anything. But, I'm not 100% sure of that.

Are you sure you are not 100% sure?

 

[Pookster]

Are you sure you are not 100% sure?

I'm 100% sure of it.

Wait ...

 

[Norseman]

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?

Are you familiar with the survivors in stairwell B of WTC 1, it went down the middle of the tower all the way to the bottom on B-6. The lower part of that stairwell was not crushed by the upper part of the building. It does not exactly support your theory. Here is the story:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

Here is a picture of the stairwell taken during the recovery work:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4060.jpg (647.8 KB)

And very large parts of the core remained standing for some seconds after the rest of the towers had collapsed:
Here and as you can see on this page if you scroll down to the collapse of WTC1. (Think twice before you click on any of the pictures, because they are huge files showing film grain, without much more viewable details)

Bombs in the basement does not make any logical sense, the preparations would have increased the risk of blowing the plan tremendously.

I would think that the recovery workers would have noticed steel columns suspiciously cut in the towers core on the basement levels, when they were digging out and cutting the steel in the basement levels for transport.

 

[Slayhamlet]

This kid has a serious attitude problem. Any criticism of his position somehow mysteriously warps into a "personal attack" in his mind, to which he responds with braggadocio and vile insults. The hypocrisy is astounding. All of this indicates that he's not mature enough to accept legitimate criticism.

Could I suggest that the mods moderate this thread to keep it in line? Otherwise I'll be putting this one on ignore.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

To analyze the possiblity of explosives, a person must also take into account the opportunities for emplacement. The "explosives used" arguments tend to fail in this regard.

Previous attempts at explaining such installations - the "power downs" that are part of the basic lore - have been inadequate in this regard. Only Dr. Greening (Apollo20) has come up any sort of unique hypothesis (sorry Max, your discussions are on incendiaries, not explosives. Have to exclude you. No offense).

So taking into account that, plus the existence of a very obvious source for what fire damage was observed (the jet fuel), plus the descriptions of the damage, plus the witness testimony, etc. all add up to a sum that points away from the use of explosives in the basement (I'll ignore the arguments about explosives higher up, since the topic is Saltalamacchia's testimony and events in the basement levels). Submitting that bombs "could have been" in the basement is advancing an argument that is contradicted more than supported by the known facts (as one example, re: Norseman's post above).

 

[Norseman]

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.

You missed your chance to hear the Flight 93 CVR recording yourself last year. It was played in a public court session with the public and press present.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/12/moussaoui.trial/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/us/13moussaoui.html

That should be more than good enough. It would serve no further purpose for this tape to float around on Youtube as a kind of macabre entertainment. We are talking about a recording of humans pleading for their lives while they are killed.

Here is the court order protecting the tape:
http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:01-cr-00455/docs/72176/0.pdf

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

There's no reason at this point to suspect BOMBS IN THE WTC, so this statement is totally uninteresting.

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.

You've done none of the above. Not a single thing you've presented even suggests explosives in the basement.

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've already shown you how everything observed points to jet fuel.

I've also already shown you that, had explosives of any significance gone off, there should have been audio, structural, and seismic records thereof. There are none. This is as close as it gets to "proving" there were no explosives.

Anyway, I'm done here unless you have something more reasonable to bring up. I also remind you that remarks like the following:

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.

... are in direct contravention of your Membership Agreement, and totally juvenile besides. Don't bother invoking my name again until you're ready to grow up.

 

[brasil]

Are you familiar with the survivors in stairwell B of WTC 1, it went down the middle of the tower all the way to the bottom on B-6. The lower part of that stairwell was not crushed by the upper part of the building. It does not exactly support your theory. Here is the story:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

Here is a picture of the stairwell taken during the recovery work:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/4060.jpg (647.8 KB)

And very large parts of the core remained standing for some seconds after the rest of the towers had collapsed:
Here and as you can see on this page if you scroll down to the collapse of WTC1. (Think twice before you click on any of the pictures, because they are huge files showing film grain, without much more viewable details)

Bombs in the basement does not make any logical sense, the preparations would have increased the risk of blowing the plan tremendously.

I would think that the recovery workers would have noticed steel columns suspiciously cut in the towers core on the basement levels, when they were digging out and cutting the steel in the basement levels for transport.

What then are we to make of this image, which seems to show a steel beam cut at an angle (something they do in professional demolitions to make the area above "slide' to the side) and the evidence of melted metal around the cut:

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

The site, which I have never seen until now, states:

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

Wouldn't we expect the broken steel to look more like it had been twisted, bent, and then broken off, rather than a perfect cut like that? Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical.

 

[Totovader]

I just spit out my drink.

brasil seriously just came back with the "cut columns" nonsense...

aw nah you diint.

This was debunked ages ago (by others long before me- of course)

 

[Garb]

You are aware thermite doesn't really go across like that, right?

And for analysis of that picture, just go to http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm

 

[brasil]

... are in direct contravention of your Membership Agreement, and totally juvenile besides. Don't bother invoking my name again until you're ready to grow up.

Have you even read the entire thread and seen the kind of rude and off-topic treatment i've gotten from Arus808 and Totovader? Although Totovader may have started the thread, not one of his replies to me has been on-topic, and all have either personally attacked me or been snide and condescending, offering nothing to the discussion. It's obvious that I'm the "newcomer" to the board, and all of you are in bed with each other, so it's easy to demonize me and gang up. That makes a lot of you rank hypocrites who aren't really interested in the topic at hand, just shouting down people you don't agree with. Anyone who reads my posts can clearly see I have a genuine interest in learning more about this issue, and posting my ideas. I've had enough of the bullying - it's getting old.

 

[stateofgrace]

What then are we to make of this image, which seems to show a steel beam cut at an angle (something they do in professional demolitions to make the area above "slide' to the side) and the evidence of melted metal around the cut:

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

The site, which I have never seen until now, states:

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

Wouldn't we expect the broken steel to look more like it had been twisted, bent, and then broken off, rather than a perfect cut like that? Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_21923476329c54bc9a.jpg[/URL]

Brazil how did the thermite make these cuts? Diagonal and horizontal?

PS. Thermite is used for welding and leaves a white residue, can you show me any white residue?

 

[brasil]

I just spit out my drink.

brasil seriously just came back with the "cut columns" nonsense...

aw nah you diint.

This was debunked ages ago (by others long before me- of course)

And did you notice that the last sentence of my post was? It was "Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical." What that shows is that i was using CRITICAL THINKING, and considering all of the possibilities for and against that beam being evidence.

Did I say "that one beam in that one picture proves that explosives were used?" NO.

How can I "come back with the cut columns nonsense" when I have never mentioned it in the first place? This is further evidence that you're the one attacking me at every opportunity and not even reading my posts. You just jockey on that keyboard at the first instant you think you've "got me."

Do not continue to post "G.F.Y."

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

 

[AZCat]

Anyone who reads my posts can clearly see I have a genuine interest in learning more about this issue, and posting my ideas.

No.

 

[T.A.M.]

Steel can "crack off" as well as bend. It depends on the properties of the steel used, the temperature of the steel, the direction of the net force applied to it, and so on. It is not as simple as "steel should only bend". To me, it seems that steel cracking off, some very evenly, others not, etc...would be expected in such a large, complex occurance as the collapse of a 110 storey building.

TAM

 

[stateofgrace]

Did I say "that one beam in that one picture proves that explosives were used?" NO.

.

You linked to a site that clearly said this

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_21923476329c54bc9a.jpg[/URL]

White residue, sometime today maybe ?