Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Totovader]

ok but you would accept that he was thrown to the ground resulting from the impact of the plane - i mean that is your position right?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself on this matter. I've already answered this at least 3 times.

 

[thewholesoul]

hey all, i broke up that rant earlier into paragraphs and shorter versions

totovader says “If you were any more inconsistent, your head would fall off.”

I fail to see the causal connection between inconsistency and heads falling off. Again your causal explanation is grossly lacking any semblance of plausability.

totovader says “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.”

I thought i was quoting Sir Conan Doyle but perhaps your right, no correction, your always right and fictional charcaters can write their own screen play!!

So first and foremost let us clear one matter up. You are claiming that what moreli experinced – the first event – was the impact of the plane. What mackey claimed was that it was the compressed air produced by the falling elevator. I am not entirely clear what gravy asserts but it could be either a fireball or other elevators falling. This inconsistency between your explanations in relation to moreili’s testimony is a fact – its not debatable. Now if you have a problem with me pointing out that “your” current explanation is impossible, as you have proposed alternative explanations before, then you also have a problem with their explanations also. Heres another fact – they cant all be right. Moreli could not have been thrown to the ground by the impact of an airplane, the compressed air, a falling elevator and a firball all at the same time. And we know that moreli was thrown to ground a second time when he entered the south tower. So what is CAUSING him to be thrown to the ground. Its a perfectly valid question and no matter how many times you say it’s irrelevant or “it does not matter” – i will continue to ask the question in search of the MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. And if you can see “no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events” – then you are clearly ignorant or unaware of the fact that other members in this forum present different versions of the event.

Now one tactic your increasingly averting to is poo-pooing the testimony of moreli.
Moreli “could be wrong” you say. I accept that, but i offered a distinction which you seem to have ignored. Of course he had no idea what was causing the events he was experiencing – he could very well be wrong there. But his experience of being thrown to the ground is not a matter of right or wrong – it either happened or it did not. Assuming it did happen, it is our job to explain how it happened or what caused it to happen. This is not an insignificant line of inquiry. If indeed you invited me here to provide witness testimony in support of rodriguez then you should at least acknowledge the relevance of my inquiry in trying to establish that link. I will incude further testimony in conjunction with one another at some point in time but i just want to get to the bottom of moreli’s testimony first.

The question raised in my previous post was whether morelli’s experience is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind the events he experienced. You robotically replied “Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.” Whose version? Mackey’s, gravy’s or yours?? More importantly is science backing up there version of events? We need to get to the bottom of this to eliminate the possibility of the explosive theory and to remove gad fly’s like me who will continue to ask those pesky questions and will not just accept the widely accepted scientific version of the events until it makes sense – to me.

 

[Totovader]

*smacks forehead*

It's like talking to a brick wall.

THE QUOTE FEATURE- thewholesoul- WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TO LEARN THE QUOTE FEATURE?

 

[Totovader]

It's not legible- it's a pain in the rear to read. I'm not going to keep fixing your posts for you in reply.

Several people have already explained the quote function to you- you need to at least get that down before you post again.

zing!

 

[thewholesoul]

But lets shift gear. I presented my reasons why i believe your explanation of morilli’s first event was impossible. So lets see some of those reasons and what you said in return.

(a)morellini could not have “heard” the plane impacting 90 floors above and even if he did it would not sound like what he described hearing. I supported this argument with other testimony from people on the 62nd floor and others even closer to the impact zone who did not hear anything. I am assuming that people closer to an impact of a plane are more likley to hear that impact.

Now i accepted that the sound of the plane impacting may have travelled down the elevator shaft but if that was the case then why did morelli assume he heard something falling over in the floors above him and not in the elevator shaft? And would it sound like an “impact” of something “very heavy” falling over? I dont know what the sound of a plane impacting 90 floors above travelling down an elevator shaft would sound like but i seriously doubt it would sound like an “object” falling over. Plus felipe david standing infront of the same elevator shaft reported hearing an “explosion” below and morelli reported hearing an “explosion” above. If the sound travelled down the elevator shaft then why would it stop between david and morelli? Is this how sound behaves? It appears completely implausible. now we know that mackey and gravy also share my personal incredulity because they espose different explanations to the particular event in question but does anyone else in this forum share my personal incredulity?

Arguments against:
(1) you highlight an irrelevant difference between “hearing” and “feeling” which is pointless because my argument is specifically addressing what he “heard” not what he “felt”. I address what he “felt” in subsequent arguments.

(2) Some pointless distinction between describing an event and explaining an event in the loading dock. Whatever morelli heard he assumed it came from the above floors – does that description satisfy?

(3) “structure and section” argument: basically being able to "hear" the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in. Question: does this argument explain how felipe david, standing next to the same structure on a section closer to the impact, did not “hear” the impact above him, like morelli, but “heard” something between himself and morelli? Does the “structure and section” argument explain the kind of sound that morelli heard and where he thought he heard it?

(4) redectionist argument. Totovader trys to reduce morelli’s experience only to what he “felt” and not what he “heard”. These are two distinct and separte issues. (5) argumment from human perceptions: morelli had some sort of super human ability and could hear the impact of a plane 90 floors above becasue he was standing beside the elevator shaft in b4 eventhough felipe david standing beside the same elevator shaft on b1 did not hear a plane impact above him but heard something like an “explosion” below him.

 

[thewholesoul]

(b) morelli could not have been thrown to the ground from a plane impacting 90 floors above and even if the shock waves travelled down the building it would not “throw him” to the ground. Again i am assuming that a person closer to an impact are more likely to “feel” the impact and be “thrown” to the floor.

I checked the testimony of people on and above the b1 level up to the 88th level and nobody reported being thrown to the ground. The closest i could find was Greg Trevor 68th floor “I was nearly knocked to the floor by the impact of the first plane”. I found no reports below b4 of people being thrown to the floor. Now I thought that the fact that noone above or below morelli experienced being thrown to the floor that that would count for somethng...i was wrong. Although i accepted totovaders point that not everyone will experience the same thing when a plane impacts a building (and the variety of testimony supports him on this) - i cannot accept the claim that a plane impacting 90 floors above would cause morilli to be thrown to the floor (and the testimony overwhelmingly supports me on this one). would the shock waves have enough force to cause this effect from 90 floors above? I am not a physicist i dont know but i am personally incredulous that it would.

A far more plausible explanation would be mackey’s which states that the compressed air produced by the falling elevator would cause morilli to fall over, even gravy’s explanation of a fireball ball exploding somewhere in the basement above or a collapsing elevator – but to imagine that the impact of a plane could do so is too much for me to conceptually swallow.

Aguments against: (1) “structure and section” again: if there was something unique to basement levels b2-4 structurally or otherwise that would not only conduct but intensify the shock wave from the plane’s impact and cause morilli to be thrown to ground, totovader has not provided any explanation to that effect. His argumnet rests on the plausible assetion that the structure of the building will not be “affected equally” by the impact. But i and others are personally incredulous that this structure would act so “unequally” in relation to what morilli witnessed.

(2) i provided no evidence to support my argument. If you can use testimony to support your claim that people will recieve different experiences from a plane impacting then why is my use of testimony not count for anything? The testimony reveals that nobody on any other floor except b4 were thrown to the ground.

(3) the burden of proof: maybe out of habit to debating truthers one of totovaders favourite punch lines is “prove it”. However what my friend fails to understand is that it is “his theory” or “his hypothesis” that is under scrutiny and in need of defence. I am openly saying that it is impossible, you say no it is possible, so i say prove it. But i know you are not a structural egineer or physicist so i do not expect or require that you provide some fantastic equation or structural anomoly that would prove your “structural inequality of impact theory”. Rather i simply urge you to use some common sense and ask yourself which is a more plausible explanation as to why morilli was thrown to the ground: was it (a) compressed air, (b) an elevator collapse (c) an exploding fireball on 1-3 floors above or (d) the impact of a plane 90+floors above? And just in case you feel like changing your mind (f) planted incentary devices??

 

[thewholesoul]

Predictions is one part of the scientific method. Let us say for argumnets sake that we could construct the twin towers with the same specifications et cetera and recreated what happened placing morelli in the same position he was. I would predict that on no occassion would he be thrown to the ground by the plane impacting. What would you predict? Would say from the 100 trials he would fall everytime? Most times? Or on a few occassions? If you answered this question honestly you will understand why other explanations (a) (b) (c) or (f) are a lot more PLAUSIBLE.

I predict you will respond as follows: basically the “structure and section argument” on steroids. An intensification of the difference in human perceptions and memory. You will try to either belittle the use in trying to explain the experience of morelli, or say it is irelevant and so on. But if you are going to continue holding onto the belief that a plane impact caused morilli to be thrown to the ground instead of simply quoting one line from me and inserting one of your own beneath why dont you make a presentation with substantial arguments. How the shock wave could travel down the building, through what material it travelled down, and most importantly why this explanation is consistent with morilli’s testimony. Why dont you argue against the other explanations by mackey and gravy i.e. that their explanations are less plausible than yours? And if any one else out there feels that totovader is right then why dont you present an argument as to how the impact of a plane 90+ floors above caused morilli to be thrown to the ground.

 

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul- What is the purpose of you harassing everyone to side with me?

Your curiosity has absolutely no bearing on this discussion- especially in regards to you making your case.

hey totovader, i was under the impression that this was a forum so i thought it a good idea where people stand on the issue. i am trying to conduct a line of inquiry into the most plausible explanation behind individual testimony.

i asked some others their opinion becasue there seems to be something other than a concensus regarding the cuasal explanation behind morilli being thrown to the ground.

so by gathering other positions i am trying to expland the debate and get it focued. if we are to find the most plausible explanation we are going to need to know how many explanations are out there to begin with.

wouldnt you agree

 

[thewholesoul]

*smacks forehead*

It's like talking to a brick wall.

THE QUOTE FEATURE- thewholesoul- WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TO LEARN THE QUOTE FEATURE?

i know people say that to me a lot, i admit i'm not the brightest but i can hold my own in an argumnet.

 

[Totovader]

hey all, i broke up that rant earlier into paragraphs and shorter versions

You did not- however- do what was asked of you.

I fail to see the causal connection between inconsistency and heads falling off. Again your causal explanation is grossly lacking any semblance of plausability.

I fail to see how your criticism holds any weight.

I thought i was quoting Sir Conan Doyle but perhaps your right, no correction, your always right and fictional charcaters can write their own screen play!!

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

So first and foremost let us clear one matter up. You are claiming that what moreli experinced – the first event – was the impact of the plane. What mackey claimed was that it was the compressed air produced by the falling elevator. I am not entirely clear what gravy asserts but it could be either a fireball or other elevators falling. This inconsistency between your explanations in relation to moreili’s testimony is a fact – its not debatable.

Perhaps you could explain what that inconsistency is- and why it's relevant.

Now if you have a problem with me pointing out that “your” current explanation is impossible, as you have proposed alternative explanations before, then you also have a problem with their explanations also.

You have pointed out no such thing- you just made the claim and then assumed that was adequate. Clearly, it is not.

Heres another fact – they cant all be right. Moreli could not have been thrown to the ground by the impact of an airplane, the compressed air, a falling elevator and a firball all at the same time.

There's a point somewhere in here, I'm sure...

And we know that moreli was thrown to ground a second time when he entered the south tower. So what is CAUSING him to be thrown to the ground. Its a perfectly valid question and no matter how many times you say it’s irrelevant or “it does not matter” – i will continue to ask the question in search of the MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION.

Then you are wasting my time. You have no evidence to support your assertions, and indeed appear to have dropped them instead JAQing off.

And if you can see “no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events” – then you are clearly ignorant or unaware of the fact that other members in this forum present different versions of the event.

That's dodging the issue. Different explanations do not mean inconsistency with the general conclusions. They do- however- mean that your original claim (which- again, you seem to have abandoned) is not supported.

Now one tactic your increasingly averting to is poo-pooing the testimony of moreli.

Like hell I am. One tactic you seem to be in love with are these absurd strawman arguments.

Moreli “could be wrong” you say. I accept that, but i offered a distinction which you seem to have ignored.

You mean the distinction which I specifically replied to- pointing out that it was meaningless and inconsistent?

When I point out that your claim is inconsistent- does that mean I "seem to have ignored" it, in your eyes?

That's not very honest of you.

Of course he had no idea what was causing the events he was experiencing – he could very well be wrong there. But his experience of being thrown to the ground is not a matter of right or wrong – it either happened or it did not. Assuming it did happen, it is our job to explain how it happened or what caused it to happen.

Um, "our" job, nothing. If you believe it's evidence of something, it's your job to prove it occurred, and then explain what could and could not have caused it- ruling out any other plausible scenarios.

You haven't even begun to do this.

This is not an insignificant line of inquiry.

It's a self-defeating line of inquiry. Your argument goes like this:

1) There were bombs in the basement.
2) There is no evidence for this, however, there are "inconsistencies" between a single eyewitness account and the "official story".
3) The inconsistencies are not specific, and cannot easily be named.
4) However, using the method of a fictional character, we can eliminate the widely accepted scientific version of the events by ignoring the evidence and going with whatever is left over- regardless of whether there is evidence to support it or not.

If you think Morelli's testimony proves your case- then you need to explain why. Finding inconsistencies in an eyewitness account is a dazzling exercise in futility. Even if you were to find "inconsistencies"- it would not prove a thing.

Find inconsistencies in the evidence- and then you have my attention, and the attention of everyone else on this forum.

If indeed you invited me here to provide witness testimony in support of rodriguez then you should at least acknowledge the relevance of my inquiry in trying to establish that link.

I'm not sure how you can expect me to do this since it has not been demonstrated by your efforts at all.

I will incude further testimony in conjunction with one another at some point in time but i just want to get to the bottom of moreli’s testimony first.

The question raised in my previous post was whether morelli’s experience is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind the events he experienced. You robotically replied “Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.” Whose version? Mackey’s, gravy’s or yours??

Again, you're taking my comments out of context. Whether Morelli remembers things wrong, or whether the timing in his memory is off, or whether he's recalling the events perfectly does not matter in the context of the events. Finding multiple different "versions" of the same conclusion- is not fruitful- it's reductio ad absurdum- the "inconsistencies" you think you're finding are not the least bit relevant or damaging to the conclusion.

If I clean the floor and then say "this floor is clean", but then you turn around and call me a liar because you've just run microscopic tests and found trace amounts of bacteria- you're ignoring the fundamental case: the floor, which once was dirty, is now clean.

I'm not sure if you're ever going to be able to understand this- because you've ignored it for several pages now. Finding inconsistencies in witness testimony is no great accomplishment.

More importantly is science backing up there version of events?

Is that a rhetorical question- or is this some kind of hint that you're actually going to produce something worth reading?

We need to get to the bottom of this to eliminate the possibility of the explosive theory and to remove gad fly’s like me who will continue to ask those pesky questions and will not just accept the widely accepted scientific version of the events until it makes sense – to me.

Who's this "we" Kemosabe? YOU. YOU need to present your case and stop wasting my time. That SCIENCE thing you were talking about sounds interesting... where are you on that?

 

[Totovader]

But lets shift gear. I presented my reasons why i believe your explanation of morilli’s first event was impossible. So lets see some of those reasons and what you said in return.

This is why you need to take the time to understand the quote feature.

It's impossible to understand what you're responding to- and it's obvious that you're changing the context of my rebuttals.

Your outright refusal to understand how quoting works now appears to be deliberate.

(a)morellini could not have “heard” the plane impacting 90 floors above and even if he did it would not sound like what he described hearing. I supported this argument with other testimony from people on the 62nd floor and others even closer to the impact zone who did not hear anything. I am assuming that people closer to an impact of a plane are more likley to hear that impact.

Your assumption needs to be backed up by evidence.

Using your logic I showed that individuals on the 62nd floor heard and felt nothing- therefore there was no impact.

Now i accepted that the sound of the plane impacting may have travelled down the elevator shaft but if that was the case then why did morelli assume he heard something falling over in the floors above him and not in the elevator shaft? And would it sound like an “impact” of something “very heavy” falling over? I dont know what the sound of a plane impacting 90 floors above travelling down an elevator shaft would sound like but i seriously doubt it would sound like an “object” falling over.

There's nothing to respond to, here.

Your entire argument is fallacious- argument from personal incredulity.

Plus felipe david standing infront of the same elevator shaft reported hearing an “explosion” below and morelli reported hearing an “explosion” above. If the sound travelled down the elevator shaft then why would it stop between david and morelli? Is this how sound behaves?

This has already been explained to you.

It appears completely implausible. now we know that mackey and gravy also share my personal incredulity because they espose different explanations to the particular event in question but does anyone else in this forum share my personal incredulity?

That's not what personal incredulity is.

Arguments against:
(1) you highlight an irrelevant difference between “hearing” and “feeling” which is pointless because my argument is specifically addressing what he “heard” not what he “felt”. I address what he “felt” in subsequent arguments.

I have absolutely no idea what you're rebutting, here.

(2) Some pointless distinction between describing an event and explaining an event in the loading dock. Whatever morelli heard he assumed it came from the above floors – does that description satisfy?

No. You have attempted to misquote Morelli on several occasions. If you're going to reverse your position- you need to be distinct.

(3) “structure and section” argument: basically being able to "hear" the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in. Question: does this argument explain how felipe david, standing next to the same structure on a section closer to the impact, did not “hear” the impact above him, like morelli, but “heard” something between himself and morelli? Does the “structure and section” argument explain the kind of sound that morelli heard and where he thought he heard it?

Here again you try and change what Morelli said. I'm not going to explain this to you again.

(4) redectionist argument. Totovader trys to reduce morelli’s experience only to what he “felt” and not what he “heard”. These are two distinct and separte issues.

Please quote what the crap you're talking about.

(5) argumment from human perceptions: morelli had some sort of super human ability and could hear the impact of a plane 90 floors above becasue he was standing beside the elevator shaft in b4 eventhough felipe david standing beside the same elevator shaft on b1 did not hear a plane impact above him but heard something like an “explosion” below him.

Strawman.

 

[Totovader]

Predictions is one part of the scientific method. Let us say for argumnets sake that we could construct the twin towers with the same specifications et cetera and recreated what happened placing morelli in the same position he was. I would predict that on no occassion would he be thrown to the ground by the plane impacting. What would you predict? Would say from the 100 trials he would fall everytime? Most times? Or on a few occassions? If you answered this question honestly you will understand why other explanations (a) (b) (c) or (f) are a lot more PLAUSIBLE.

I predict you will respond as follows: basically the “structure and section argument” on steroids. An intensification of the difference in human perceptions and memory. You will try to either belittle the use in trying to explain the experience of morelli, or say it is irelevant and so on. But if you are going to continue holding onto the belief that a plane impact caused morilli to be thrown to the ground instead of simply quoting one line from me and inserting one of your own beneath why dont you make a presentation with substantial arguments. How the shock wave could travel down the building, through what material it travelled down, and most importantly why this explanation is consistent with morilli’s testimony. Why dont you argue against the other explanations by mackey and gravy i.e. that their explanations are less plausible than yours? And if any one else out there feels that totovader is right then why dont you present an argument as to how the impact of a plane 90+ floors above caused morilli to be thrown to the ground.

I predict you have no evidence whatsoever to support your assertions.

 

[Totovader]

hey totovader, i was under the impression that this was a forum so i thought it a good idea where people stand on the issue. i am trying to conduct a line of inquiry into the most plausible explanation behind individual testimony.

i asked some others their opinion becasue there seems to be something other than a concensus regarding the cuasal explanation behind morilli being thrown to the ground.

so by gathering other positions i am trying to expland the debate and get it focued. if we are to find the most plausible explanation we are going to need to know how many explanations are out there to begin with.

wouldnt you agree

No, you're trying to find the smallest scrap of dirt and then claim it's an "inconsistency".

You have been unable to explain why the differences would affect the overall argument.

This is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum. Similar to your Sherlock Holmes argument- you think that finding the smallest inconsistency (which is really just ignorance) means that the case goes out the window and that you can fill the void with your own version.

This needs to be fundamentally understood by you: this tactic is specifically employed to avoid the evidence and circumvent the scientific method. If you don't believe me- then watch what happens when you try and make the same case using evidence. Instead of starting in the middle and branching out from what you consider is an "inconsistency"- let's watch what happens when you start out with an observation, work your way into a theory, test the theory, and then draw a conclusion.

It'll be fun.

 

[thewholesoul]

I predict you have no evidence whatsoever to support your assertions.

i enjoyed reading your rebuttal game warden. i see you got promoted as a result of responding to me - congratulations. i feel i should take credit for something?

different causal explanations as to why morilli was thrown to the ground are inconsistent with one another because they cannot all be true - surely you know that?

anyways i hope to have a very short post tommorrow - it may even contain science!!

all the best

 

[Totovader]

i enjoyed reading your rebuttal game warden. i see you got promoted as a result of responding to me - congratulations. i feel i should take credit for something?

Has nothing to do with you. Sorry.

different causal explanations as to why morilli was thrown to the ground are inconsistent with one another because they cannot all be true - surely you know that?

They are not technically inconsistent with one another just because all of them could not have happened. All of them happening together would be inconsistent. However, in order for this line of nonsense to even be worthy of my time, you will have to show why all of these explanations damage the widely accepted scientific version of the events- or more specifically- why this supports your bomb in the basement claim.

anyways i hope to have a very short post tommorrow - it may even contain science!!

If it doesn't, I probably won't bother responding.

 

[Gravy]

thewholesoul, after I told you that you had spelled "Morelli" three different ways, you just spelled it three different ways again. And now you're claiming unfamiliarity with the "return" key.

You lack intelligence, respect for victims, and respect for learning.

If you must troll, can't you choose another subject? One that doesn't affect real people in the real world every day?

Welcome to ignore.

 

[thewholesoul]

No, you're trying to find the smallest scrap of dirt and then claim it's an "inconsistency".

You have been unable to explain why the differences would affect the overall argument.

This is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum. Similar to your Sherlock Holmes argument- you think that finding the smallest inconsistency (which is really just ignorance) means that the case goes out the window and that you can fill the void with your own version.

This needs to be fundamentally understood by you: this tactic is specifically employed to avoid the evidence and circumvent the scientific method. If you don't believe me- then watch what happens when you try and make the same case using evidence. Instead of starting in the middle and branching out from what you consider is an "inconsistency"- let's watch what happens when you start out with an observation, work your way into a theory, test the theory, and then draw a conclusion.

It'll be fun.

hey prediction is part of the scientific method and you didnt bother to answer my question on predictions. anyways that doesnt bother me

question what if could demonstrate through logic that the testimony of explosions could not be possibly explained by reference to fireballs, elevators or planes hitting? its a hypothetical question, but if i was able to eliminate the other explanations - through logic - then logic demands we look for a new explanation right?

 

[Totovader]

hey prediction is part of the scientific method and you didnt bother to answer my question on predictions. anyways that doesnt bother me

question what if could demonstrate through logic that the testimony of explosions could not be possibly explained by reference to fireballs, elevators or planes hitting? its a hypothetical question, but if i was able to eliminate the other explanations - through logic - then logic demands we look for a new explanation right?

That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You are awarded no points.

 

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul, after I told you that you had spelled "Morelli" three different ways, you just spelled it three different ways again. And now you're claiming unfamiliarity with the "return" key.

You lack intelligence, respect for victims, and respect for learning.

If you must troll, can't you choose another subject? One that doesn't affect real people in the real world every day?

Welcome to ignore.

hey gravy thanks for your insightful objections to my post. you seem a little strict on the spell check. how spelling the name wrong of a person who is not a victim is equated to disrespecting the victims of 911 is baffling.

in any case i was invited to this forum, and i will remain pleasant at all times because i am a pleasant person.

you do know that if you give someone a present and they refuse to accept that the present, the present belongs to you? well the same applies to insults

 

[Totovader]

hey gravy thanks for your insightful objections to my post. you seem a little strict on the spell check. how spelling the name wrong of a person who is not a victim is equated to disrespecting the victims of 911 is baffling.

This would be one sign of disrespect.

Just because Morelli did not die on September 11th does not mean he's not a victim,

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Furthermore, you could try and show a little respect. It should take very little effort on your part to spell his name correctly.