Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Gravy]

by the way this is just a comment. in your paper there appears to be no testimony from people who were on the b3 floor wjen "things started happening". i just found this curious.

I'll be glad to add whatever you find.

 

[thewholesoul]

I sit slackjawed, in awe.

it was a joke amigo you can push your jaw back up now...

 

[AZCat]

it was a joke amigo you can push your jaw back up now...

Sorry, it gets a little difficult to tell the difference around here.

If only you were posting when the great Malcom Kirkman was still with us - the man would post stuff like that in great masses. He is a legend. I think he managed to be wrong about every thing he said (quite literally).

 

[T.A.M.]

Sorry, it gets a little difficult to tell the difference around here.

If only you were posting when the great Malcom Kirkman was still with us - the man would post stuff like that in great masses. He is a legend. I think he managed to be wrong about every thing he said (quite literally).

Yes apparently, if what I hear is true, be spends his time spamming CS blog and giving away Loose Change and other 9/11 truth CDs at various public locales...

TAM

 

[AZCat]

Yes apparently, if what I hear is true, be spends his time spamming CS blog and giving away Loose Change and other 9/11 truth CDs at various public locales...

TAM

Fortunately there is a vast expanse of water between us and the mighty Kirkman. If confronted on the street by him with CT spam I don't know if I could handle it. I might just have to go truther on y'all.

 

[Mobyseven]

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

Seems like someone needs to attend a few first year law lectures...

 

[GStan]

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.

What good does it do to weaken the lower part to remove the resistance from the bottom of the building for a collapse that began 90 floors above? If the structure must be weakened to remove the resistance to collapse, what removed the resistance (please don't say more explosives) for the other 90 floors of collapse in between? By your words above you almost seem to be implying that without the explosives, the lower floors (10 floors? I can't imagine any number defined as the 'lower floors' will add any sense to this scenario) would arrest the momentum of the 100 story collapse and under the rubble pile we'd find the intact 10 story frame of the trade tower. You attend Columbia. You can't seriously be making this argument are you? You seem more intelligent than this. Please take this post to a couple professors in the engineering department on Monday. I'm not engineering-literate enough to explain it, but I can certainly see why its incorrect. I know there are some structural experts in here that could. I'm surprised they did not jump on this. Perhaps it was just too obviously easy for them to bother.
If so, thanks for leaving an easy one for the new guy.

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

i guess the confusion is due to what "objective" we are linking the relevance of the sequence of events. you are basing the relevance of the sequence in relation to the claim of bombs in the basement. i am basing its relevance in relation to revealing the inconsistency between the official explanation and what morelini actually experienced. i hope that answers your question.

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.

let us be clear?? Just because he said they actually happened does not mean they actually happened but i am not saying they didn’t happen? So what are you saying? Did they or did they not happen? Lets just assume they did for “arguments sake”.

They are in contradiction to what? To your "causal explanation" behind the events he experienced. Yes i argue that they are in contradiction to your explanation. yes Morelli could be wrong about his assumptions concerning the causes behind event one and two i accept that but experience is not a question of right or wrong its a question of whether it happened or not. Your confusing the issue.


Well... there were these planes...

well...no, there was only one plane 90+ floors above that hit the north tower


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).

I concede it was “or” and not “and” – congratulations.

I acknowledge further down that he was uncertain about the causes of the events he was percieving. Besides wouldnt “whatever” indicate this?

Which is it then the plane impact or the elevator crashing down? Or are you now claiming both?


You're wrong, here- the 2nd event and the elevators falling are one in the same.

I was limiting the two events to the two “impacts” he describes but if you wish i have no problem describing the falling elevator as the second event and (presumably) its impact as the third event. In any case, The first event and its causes is key to my argument.

You're asking whether what Morelli is explaining is what Morelli is explaining?

no i am asking if what morellini experienced is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind what he experienced.

Strawman- he's not describing just hearing a plane impact, he's describing feeling it.

i think i recognised that and divided his experience into sound, feelings, and what he thought at the time.

So you believe he did “hear” on b4 the plane impact on the 90 floor?

62nd floor Daniel T. Duffy: "I heard no sound - no crash, no explosion"

now maybe the sound traveled down the elevator shaft but would that sound like an "impact" from the "explosion" like something heavy "falling over" in the "loading dock" that blew him to the floor? i doubt it would sound that STRONG. moreover the sound morellini heard was not coming from the elevator - his testimony suggests to me that he perceived the sound as coming from the loading dock.

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.

Your reductionist interpretation is not valid because moreillin both heard and felt something happening and your explanation must remain in the context of what he experienced not what you would want him to have experienced.

the "structure and section” argumnet does not seem plausible to me in this case. Kindly tell me what structure he was near that greatly enhanced his hearing ability and susceptability to "feel"·the sound of the plane impacting 90+ floors above. i do accept that people in different areas of the building heard and felt different things but if i could provide another example of someone else in the building situated beside the same structure, with greater proximity to the plane impact yet did not hear or feel the plane impact would you concede on this issue?


Argument from personal incredulity. Who do you think was "nearer" to the impact that did not fall over that should have fallen over?

hmmmm that would be everybody that was “nearer” to the impact. should they have fallen over? well given that morellini did i would expect at least one or two.

Do you have any examples or studies that would support your assertion that people closer to impacts are more likley to remain standing. My argument from personal incredulity has more c-r-e-d-u-l-i-t-y when you ADD my argumnets and not take them on separately and unsucessfully...i might add.

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.

What fallacy of the “hearing argumnet” i never claimed morellini “just” heared something you invented this in your mind. I guess that’s what you call the falacy of calling fallacy!! i bet you havent heard of that one before?

Without giving any specifics why should i believe your objection carries any weight? some people on higher floors felt nothing. The floor was not moving. They heard no explosion above or below them yet someone at b4 felt the floor moving and thought that the impact of the perceived explosion in the loading dock caused him to fall.

At 8:46, when the first plane struck the north tower between the 94th and 99th floors, few on the 88th or 89th floor realized what had happened, but the building swayed so far that they knew something serious had taken place.

78th floor
Schofield: My father had no idea what had happened. He and his co-workers were not terribly alarmed before I called. They knew something had happened, for they felt the building shake a bit

if you are not willing to concede that it is impossible that a plane imapcting the 93rd floor would cause a person in the b4 level to fall to be thrown to teh ground would at least concede that it is EXTREMELY improbable?

See, now you're changing the story. Morelli did not describe an event in the loading dock- you admitted this in your 4 clone.

When something falls over that is generally called an event i.e. something happening. In no.4 he assumes an event took place in the loading dock and described it as something falling over, something heavy and big. I fail to see the part where he did not describe an event. Perhaps you can quote the part from his testimony which does not describe an event in the loading dock. Even if the event was in his mind he is still describing an event. Besides what sort of argumnet is this against the claim that the imapct of a plane 90+ floors above could not cause something to fall in the loading dock. Even the perception of something falling over in the loading dock?

Something did- a plane hit the building.

If your going to argue that the plane hitting the building caused the first event that morellini experienced your going to have to back it up with something more substantial than it just did.

If your actually saying that a plane impacting 90+ floors above caused him to be thrown to ground, the ground to move, the percived “sound” of an explosion, the impression that something very heavy and big fell over in the floor(s) above him, while some people on the 78th floor much closer to the plane's impact did not hear or feel or experience ANY of the same phenomena morellini realised that morning--- then i guess we have different standards of justified true belief.

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.

vibrating floor argumnet. Because david did not specifically state that the floor was moving or vibrating i think you are taking liberties in interpretation. He could just as well have meant that below the floor he was standing on is where he heard the explosion.

Morellini did not say either that floors were vibrating, he said "moving". Vibrating would correspond to what you wish to propose that somehow shock waves from the impact caused seemingly random areas of floors in the building to vibrate; moving rather seems to be a stronger word like when people describe earth quakes or the like.

"David and morelli do not believe this was explosives" you will need to source that claim amigo.

in any case even if they dont my objective here is not to prove that explosives caused morellini’s first event – my objective is to demonstrate that the offical theory is impossible and unable to “explain” what actually happened that morning. Once we remove the impossible whatever is left however improbable must be the truth. I am sure you are all familiar with that quote.


I already explained this to you.[/QUOTE]

you did and you failed miserably

 

[thewholesoul]

my comment was not intended as an objection to your paper, your paper happens to eb well written and sourced. the only testimony of the b3 level is not from any person who was on that floor?

the only testimony we have is from Giambanco’s "I could see through the cracks we were between B-2 and B-3...I remember seeing through the slot of the elevator and seeing other people running and screaming". but even this testimony does not clarify which floor he witnessed the people.

is there anyone out there with more info on b3?i will research myself (if going to youtube and google counts as research) but would appreciate if anyone else had a bit of info - maybe the testimony of b3 - if it exists could support the testimony of rodriguez? or not

 

[uk_dave]

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?

There is a huge difference between the construction of a loadbearing wall and a partition wall.

And given that the towers were steel framed structures with steel members carrying loads down to the foundations, it's likely that there were no loadbearing walls at all, though there may well be seperating (fire and sound) walls.

But, you do touch on one interesting point.
I would direct your attention upward, towards the impact zone of the tower.....

but when walls are coming down, we can't exactly rule out "structural damage" can we?

...and when the structure is damaged, we can't exactly rule out damage to the non-loadbearing fireprotection can we?

 

[T.A.M.]

As I have said before. You cannot base what happened in a complex, horrific event like 9/11, from the testimony of one, or even two witnesses. What you have to do is take all of the testimony, find the commonality in them, and this you focus on. The minutia of any one given testimony, considering the circumstances (panicked, chaos, screaming, smoke, fire) is an exercise in goose chasing.

TAM

 

[Totovader]

thewholesoul - There's a quote function, you really need to become familiar with it. I am getting tired of dissecting your posts because you're copying and pasting replies, instead of properly parsing them out.

 

[Totovader]

i guess the confusion is due to what "objective" we are linking the relevance of the sequence of events. you are basing the relevance of the sequence in relation to the claim of bombs in the basement. i am basing its relevance in relation to revealing the inconsistency between the official explanation and what morelini actually experienced. i hope that answers your question.

No, it does not- for 2 reasons:

1) Whether Morelli is wrong or not does not seem to matter to you- that's an issue.
2) The sequence of events does not change the essence of the differences between the two "theories". That point you continue to dodge. Now you're not supporting "bombs in the basement" or the Rodriguez claims, but instead just trying to "find inconsistencies in the official story". And you're doing this by examining one witness. That is fundamentally flawed.

let us be clear?? Just because he said they actually happened does not mean they actually happened but i am not saying they didn’t happen? So what are you saying? Did they or did they not happen? Lets just assume they did for “arguments sake”.

Then why are you trying to use his testimony to claim there are inconsistencies in the "official story"?

They are in contradiction to what? To your "causal explanation" behind the events he experienced. Yes i argue that they are in contradiction to your explanation. yes Morelli could be wrong about his assumptions concerning the causes behind event one and two i accept that but experience is not a question of right or wrong its a question of whether it happened or not. Your confusing the issue.

You're contradicting yourself again- you understand that Morelli could be wrong, but then turn around and claim experience a question of whether it happened or not...

Well... there were these planes...

well...no, there was only one plane 90+ floors above that hit the north tower

No... yes there was? If you were any more inconsistent, your head would fall off.

I acknowledge further down that he was uncertain about the causes of the events he was percieving. Besides wouldnt “whatever” indicate this?

That question makes no sense.

Which is it then the plane impact or the elevator crashing down? Or are you now claiming both?

I'm saying it does not matter- but I see no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events.

You have not explained why the sequence of events would be supportive of a "bombs in the basement" theory. If you're admitting that- and instead now claiming that you're looking for "inconsistencies in the official story", then you're wasting everyones time.

I was limiting the two events to the two “impacts” he describes but if you wish i have no problem describing the falling elevator as the second event and (presumably) its impact as the third event. In any case, The first event and its causes is key to my argument.

Once you figure out what your argument is...

no i am asking if what morellini experienced is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind what he experienced.

I don't know who Morellini is- but Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.

i think i recognised that and divided his experience into sound, feelings, and what he thought at the time.

I think you didn't- which is why I pointed it out.

62nd floor Daniel T. Duffy: "I heard no sound - no crash, no explosion"

There's your "inconsistency" with the official story right there. Duffy said nothing happened... iNSiDe jOB!!11eleventyone!!

now maybe the sound traveled down the elevator shaft but would that sound like an "impact" from the "explosion" like something heavy "falling over" in the "loading dock" that blew him to the floor? i doubt it would sound that STRONG.

So here again, we have an argument from personal incredulity.

For the last time, Morelli did not describe it sounding like "something heavy falling over" he described that as the most plausible explanation to him at the time. You continue to misquote him throughout this entire thread- and it's starting to get very obvious that you're not interested in correcting yourself.

moreover the sound morellini heard was not coming from the elevator - his testimony suggests to me that he perceived the sound as coming from the loading dock.

I've already corrected you on this a dozen times. Morelli is not describing an event in the loading dock. He is providing the most plausible explanation to the event according to him based on the limited information he had at the time.

This is the LAST TIME I will make this correction for you:

Phillip Morelli: As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. I mean, the impact of the explosion, of whatever happened, it threw me to the floor, and that's when everything started happening. It knocked me right to the floor. Of course you didn't know what it was, you're assuming something just fell over in the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened, and all of a sudden you just felt the floor moving, and you get up, and the walls – and then, you know now I'm hearing that the main freight car, you know the elevators, fell down, so I was right near the main freight car, so I assume what that was. [Describing the same event] Then, you know, you heard that coming towards you, I was racing, I was going towards the bathrooms, you know, all of a sudden, and a big impact happened again, and all the ceiling tiles were falling down, the light fixtures falling, swinging out of the ceiling.

Your reductionist interpretation is not valid because moreillin both heard and felt something happening and your explanation must remain in the context of what he experienced not what you would want him to have experienced.

This is not an adequate rebuttal to my point. First of all, "reductionist" makes no sense- I was not reducing anything. I was pointing out that your method of excluding witnesses is flawed. Second, you firmly believe that the consequences of the events cannot be felt or heard on anyone below any floor where a floor above them could not hear or feel the event. This is fundamentally flawed, as I have already explained.

the "structure and section” argumnet does not seem plausible to me in this case.

And that's supposed to matter to me? Whether you accept facts or not is none of my concern.

Kindly tell me what structure he was near that greatly enhanced his hearing ability and susceptability to "feel"·the sound of the plane impacting 90+ floors above.

Any part of the structure- the basement, remember, is where the support structure connects with the ground... But there was also that elevator shaft...

i do accept that people in different areas of the building heard and felt different things but if i could provide another example of someone else in the building situated beside the same structure, with greater proximity to the plane impact yet did not hear or feel the plane impact would you concede on this issue?

... but you already accept it...

Assuming that all human perceptions are on the same level (we all see at the same level, hear at the same level, and feel at the same level), and there is no difference in the reverberations within the structure itself on ANY level, then your pathetic effort to find "flaws" in the "official story" would be a worthy endeavor.

Since we not only have differences in the structure, but differences in the levels in which humans can perceive their environment, we also have differences in the way humans can recall that perception. Just because Duffy on the 62nd floor doesn't recall an event doesn't mean it didn't happen.

hmmmm that would be everybody that was “nearer” to the impact. should they have fallen over? well given that morellini did i would expect at least one or two.

Good luck in your search. Supporting your argument from personal incredulity with just more of the same is not sufficient.

My argument from personal incredulity has more c-r-e-d-u-l-i-t-y when you ADD my argumnets and not take them on separately and unsucessfully...i might add.

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said.

What fallacy of the “hearing argumnet” i never claimed morellini “just” heared something you invented this in your mind. I guess that’s what you call the falacy of calling fallacy!! i bet you havent heard of that one before?

Your "hearing argument" is claiming that since others above Morelli recall not hearing the impact, Morelli necessarily could not have heard the impact.

Without giving any specifics why should i believe your objection carries any weight? some people on higher floors felt nothing. The floor was not moving.

I could say the same to you- without you giving me any specifics, why should I continue to waste my time watching you dodge my questions and ignore my points? I would think that my argument is pretty simple- pointing out that your claim relies heavily on fallacious assertions should be enough to cause you to question it and make efforts to be more consistent. Apparently, it's not.

They heard no explosion above or below them yet someone at b4 felt the floor moving and thought that the impact of the perceived explosion in the loading dock caused him to fall.

You have yet again, misquoted Morelli. See above.

At 8:46, when the first plane struck the north tower between the 94th and 99th floors, few on the 88th or 89th floor realized what had happened, but the building swayed so far that they knew something serious had taken place.

I bolded the relevant part of your quote, here. Not everyone in the same place, experienced or recalled the event equally. That shoots down your entire "hearing" argument.

78th floor
Schofield: My father had no idea what had happened. He and his co-workers were not terribly alarmed before I called. They knew something had happened, for they felt the building shake a bit

if you are not willing to concede that it is impossible that a plane imapcting the 93rd floor would cause a person in the b4 level to fall to be thrown to teh ground would at least concede that it is EXTREMELY improbable?

Not at all. You have provided no explanation, no evidence, no sound argument as to why it's impossible or improbable. Your entire claim rests on the idea that the structure is affected equally, that humans all perceive at the same level, and then all are able to recall perfectly. This is patently absurd.

When something falls over that is generally called an event i.e. something happening. In no.4 he assumes an event took place in the loading dock and described it as something falling over, something heavy and big. I fail to see the part where he did not describe an event.

If you assume something happened, you are making an assumption, not describing an event. Morelli did not describe an event in the loading dock, he described what he assumed at the time happened. You admitted this in your 4 clone of the previous post, but contradicted it later on in your own post.

If you refuse to understand this very fundamental detail- then it's obvious you're not interested in the facts regarding your argument. You directly contradicted yourself, here- and you wave it off as if you were not.

Perhaps you can quote the part from his testimony which does not describe an event in the loading dock. Even if the event was in his mind he is still describing an event.

I have already corrected this for you quite a few times. See above.

And no- if he's describing an assumption, he's not describing an event.

Besides what sort of argumnet is this against the claim that the imapct of a plane 90+ floors above could not cause something to fall in the loading dock. Even the perception of something falling over in the loading dock?

First- that's a strawman. I never said it could not have caused something to fall. Second- it's an argument based on the facts... those are the best kinds of arguments.

If your going to argue that the plane hitting the building caused the first event that morellini experienced your going to have to back it up with something more substantial than it just did.

Um, no I don't.

If your actually saying that a plane impacting 90+ floors above caused him to be thrown to ground, the ground to move, the percived “sound” of an explosion, the impression that something very heavy and big fell over in the floor(s) above him, while some people on the 78th floor much closer to the plane's impact did not hear or feel or experience ANY of the same phenomena morellini realised that morning--- then i guess we have different standards of justified true belief.

And the burden of proof rests on your shoulders.

vibrating floor argumnet. Because david did not specifically state that the floor was moving or vibrating i think you are taking liberties in interpretation. He could just as well have meant that below the floor he was standing on is where he heard the explosion.

That rebuttal makes no sense at all. "I think you are taking liberties" is entirely inadequate.

Morellini did not say either that floors were vibrating, he said "moving". Vibrating would correspond to what you wish to propose that somehow shock waves from the impact caused seemingly random areas of floors in the building to vibrate; moving rather seems to be a stronger word like when people describe earth quakes or the like.

Semantics- irrelevant to the argument.

"David and morelli do not believe this was explosives" you will need to source that claim amigo.

No, I do not. It's your argument that their testimony supports bombs in the basement. Since they never claim this- it would be up to you to find where they do and support your argument. Yet again, a burden of proof fallacy.

in any case even if they dont my objective here is not to prove that explosives caused morellini’s first event – my objective is to demonstrate that the offical theory is impossible and unable to “explain” what actually happened that morning. Once we remove the impossible whatever is left however improbable must be the truth. I am sure you are all familiar with that quote.

Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.

Without knowing it (because he didn't possess a brain) Holmes was describing conspiracism to the letter. Instead of utilizing scientific methods- conspiracists like yourself play mind games. By rejecting the evidence and instead looking for minute and insignificant "inconsistencies" (which are nothing more than ignorant or misinformed assertions) conspiracists believe that they can "eliminate" the most likely scenarios and ignore all the evidence. This results in a conclusion- for them- that has no supporting evidence whatsoever, a mountain of evidence contradicting it, and is self-defeating- but in the conspiracists mind is "however improbable, must be the truth".

It's not science- it's faith.

 

[Calcas]

Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.

Without knowing it (because he didn't possess a brain) Holmes was describing conspiracism to the letter. Instead of utilizing scientific methods- conspiracists like yourself play mind games. By rejecting the evidence and instead looking for minute and insignificant "inconsistencies" (which are nothing more than ignorant or misinformed assertions) conspiracists believe that they can "eliminate" the most likely scenarios and ignore all the evidence. This results in a conclusion- for them- that has no supporting evidence whatsoever, a mountain of evidence contradicting it, and is self-defeating- but in the conspiracists mind is "however improbable, must be the truth".

It's not science- it's faith.

Nominated.

BTW, hell of a job in the thread Toto. You have more patience than I...

 

[thewholesoul]

apologese, and i agree.

I want to quote like everyone else...dont know how...i am not computer savy. i can quote one part and thentype under neath. but i stil dont know hw to quote and then write underneath, and do it again.

 

[chillzero]

apologese, and i agree.

I want to quote like everyone else...dont know how...i am not computer savy. i can quote one part and thentype under neath. but i stil dont know hw to quote and then write underneath, and do it again.

You must have missed my earlier post for you.

thewholesoul:
Quote function - down there on the bottom right of each post.

Here's some helpful info:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2701915

 

[Alferd_Packer]

apologese, and i agree.

I want to quote like everyone else...dont know how...i am not computer savy. i can quote one part and thentype under neath. but i stil dont know hw to quote and then write underneath, and do it again.

The best way to do that is to use the quote function and then copy and paste the quote into a text editing program. Use the square brackets to suround the words "quote" and "/quote"
just like it shows you.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Brasil, are you the "Angry Young Man" from the O&A video?

Just curious.

Back to the subject of free Willy and the basement explosives.

If there were explosives in the basement, what do YOU think they would have sounded like?

Do YOU think that there would have been sharp, very loud, cracks when the charges went off, or do you think that they would have sounded like a rumble of heavy furniture being dargged across the floor above you?

What do YOU think?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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

Hmmm... very good points. I didn't consider those. And you're absolutely right about the emergency nature of the treatment dispensed; that's an important thing to keep in mind when studying what records exist regarding the treatment of victims at that time.

Anyway, I admit I was assuming there'd be a record somewhere that definitively centralized a complete list of the injuries treated. I quickly realized that was not the case; further research shows how ad-hoc everything was. I found (sorry! I closed the window and lost the link already) a different report on the cases treated by various emergency departments (broken limbs, concussions, etc.; as you predicted, there was only a single category referring to "respiratory" issues). I was somewhat dumbfounded that the methodology was mostly after-the-fact interviews. As best as I could tell, they did not refer to emergency departments' records to build the list of injuries; rather, they simply used such records to build lists of people they could contact.

I think we overestimate the recording capacity of the health care system, and organizations in general. The researchers saw the need to interview the victims directly to determine what injuries resulted. They gave no explanation why, but it was obvious that direct victim interview was their choice; I think it's due to the factors you listed above.

Anyway, I'm with you: I'd like to see a followup to that study, myself. Further medical care might have uncovered the sort of information I was looking for.

But, moving away from medical journals, I was also hoping to find reports of barotrauma in the mainstream news as well. I'm able to find mentions - mentions only, I'm afraid, no numbers or details - of extreme barotrauma associated with the victims of other bombings: The various Israeli bus bombings (that's where I discovered the term "White Butterfly", in a mainstream news report), the Madrid bombings, the first WTC attack, the Oklahoma City event... but no references to September 11th victims having suffered this. I figured there'd be some, even if from some survivors caught in the buildings during the collapse; it's reasonable to presume the pneumatic effect of the building collapsing would result in barotrauma injuries as well, but if it did, it seems to be lost in the description of the other injuries.

Blech... this is a real load of work. I don't think I'm going to go much further with it. But, thanks for the comment; if nothing else, I learned something new from all this.

 

[Gravy]

Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes...

It's also complete nonsense. With everything humans study, once we remove the impossible what remains is a range of possibilities that varies from small to enormous.

Excellent post, Toto.