It is not circular reasoning because it is not circular reasoning!! I did not say the sequence of events is relevant because it is relevant, i said the sequence of events is relevant becauase it is needed in order to establish whether or not the plane hitting the building and the elevator falling, things that actually happened, are compatible with what actually happened to morellini.
No, it is not. We do not need Morelli's testimony to draw such a conclusion.
Please if you are going to use philophical arguments make sure they are applicable before applying them.
I'm not sure what you think a "philophical" argument is- but that made no sense at all.
What you exhibit is called inconsistent reasoning. First you argued that the first event morellini experienced was the plane hitting the building, then you argued that it was the elevator falling, and now your latest side-show is that the sequence of events is irrelevant in order to establish what actually happened.
And what you're doing is called dodging the point. I have been trying to get you to explain
why you think the sequence of events is relevant to the claim that bombs were in the basement. You have not been able to do this.
Yes the plane hitting and elevator falling actually happened but the events morellini described also happened.
Let's be clear, here: just because Morelli described them does not mean they actually happened. I'm not saying they didn't- it's just that you're trying to claim they are in contradiction without admitting that Morelli could be wrong. You can't have it both ways.
The problem is that the plane hitting the building and the elevator falling DO NOT EXPLAIN what morellini experienced that morning in the world trade centre building. And if you think it does then explain what happened to morellini and PRESENT your explanation – something YOU continually avoid doing.
I am not avoiding it in the least- I am just not going to allow you to inject a red herring without first answering my question. To the point- however- I've already answered the question and provided an explanation. You seem to have ignored it.
Now one issue you claim i am avoiding is that in either sequence there is no bomb. In other words neither of the events experienced by morellini could have been a bomb. But once we eliminate explosives as a “possibility” then what remains?
Well... there were these planes...
Before i eliminate the imapct of a plane and the falling elevator as possible explanations to morellini’s experience i will present my interpretation of morellini’s account.
1: he experienced two distinct events
2: the first event occured when he was walking by main freight car
3: the first event caused him to fall to ground
4: he described the first event as “impact of the explosion” and “whatever it was”
No, he said
or whatever it was- indicating that he was in a position where he could not have known at the time that it was a plane or the result of the plane making impact and causing some kind of secondary effect (um, like an elevator crashing down).
4: out of uncertainity he assumed that whatever it was was something very heavy and big that fell over in the loading dock
It's very important that you remember what you have admitted here in your 4 clone.
5: the first event caused the floor to move
6: when he gets back up off the floor (duration of time unknown) he then hears what he assumes to be the freight car falling
7: when he was running towards the bathrooms he heard the second event
8: he describes the second event as a “big impact”
9: the second event caused the ceiling tiles and light fixtures to fall
You're wrong, here- the 2nd event and the elevators falling are one in the same.
So we know that the plane impact and the falling elevator actually happened but the question is do these events explain what actually happened to morellini assuming of course his tesimony is true? Now if anyone has a problem with 1-9 please provide reasons why you feel it is inaccurate within the context the testimony of morellini.
You're asking whether what Morelli is explaining is what Morelli is explaining?
Now the first event experienced by morellini could not have been the freight elevator in my opinion because morellini was walking beside it, because he thought the first impact was in the loading dock and not the elevator shaft, because he thought the second big impact was the freight elevator. So if it wasnt the freight elevator what caused morellini’s first event....
{The first event experienced by Morellini was the plane impact}
The reasons why i find this explanation impossible are as follows
(a) he could not have heard the plane from b4.
Strawman- he's not describing
just hearing a plane impact, he's describing feeling it.
If people a lot closer to the impact did not hear the plane then obviously morellini did not hear the impact. This line of argumnet is backed up by gravy #144 and there is a chapter in his paper about covering this issue. So if you wish to object to this argumnet take it up with gravy.
I wish to object to your interpretation of it. Being able to "hear" (or rather, feel) the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in.
(b) a plane impact on 90 floor would not cause him to fall over
it seems rather difficult to beleive that a plane impacting 90+ floors above would cause him to fall over especially when people nearer to the impact did not fall from the impact.
Argument from personal incredulity. Who do you think was "nearer" to the impact that did not fall over that
should have fallen over?
(c) a plane impact on 90 floor would not cause the floor to move in b4
again if the floor in b4 moved one would expect some of the floors closer to the impact moving to the same if not greater extent. This is an empirical issue that could be resolved through the testimony of people closer to the impact
Same fallacy as the "hearing" argument. The effects of the impact are not necessarily because of what level you're on- but how the building is reacting to the impact. I cannot give you specifics, because it's not my field- but I do not find your objection to carry any weight.
(d) a plane impact could not have caused something to move in the loading dock
morellini specifically mentions “impact” something falling over in the loading dock. I find it hard to beleive that the impact of the plane would sound like something falling over in the loading dock
See, now you're changing the story. Morelli
did not describe an event in the loading dock- you admitted this in your 4 clone.
(e) felipe david testimony supports the claim that something happened in in the floors above morelli.
Something did- a plane hit the building.
Felipe david was standing infront of the freight elevator. Before the freight elevator fell he claims “The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot...” see william rodriguez: escape artist – eye witness accounts from inside the towers. So David’s testimony combined with morellini’s suggests that something happened in the basement before the freight elevator fell. What was that something if it was not the result of a plane impact and the freight elevator falling?
As I've already explained to you- the vibrations of the floor (since that's where their feet are) would
feel like it's something below. However, David and Morelli both do not believe this was explosives.
If anyone has a problem with (a) – (e) please provide your reasons.
Any other explanation for the first event experienced by morellini would be appreciated. And i am still awaiting a response in relation to felipe David’s testimony. The question: how could David have heard an explosion below him before he got burned?
I already explained this to you.
