Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

. . .and i am amazingly good at asking questions.

That depends on how you wish to define "good at asking questions". Little kids are good at asking questions. That's not exactly a level of skill I would brag about, basil.

Some have said I am annoyingly good at asking questions.

Again, so are children. Also, I'm pretty sure most people have described you as annoying, yes; not for your "skill" at asking questions, but for you total pigheadedness in the face of answers.

 

[thewholesoul]

Has nothing to do with you. Sorry.



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.



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

no you will respond i guarantee it, you will try to respond but you will be unable to refute my argument. let me tell you a little secret amigo. truth cannot be debunked.

 

[Arus808]

wholesole, sorry but your acting is the worst ive seen on this forum. stop playing dumb.I know that you know how to use this forum; after 40 posts, even a newb to a forum software would get the basics down

as for your argument, you've yet to present one. You are taking one person's statement, and one who doesn't believe that he heard any bombs go off, and doesn't believe that there were bombs in the buliding, and trying to use his statements as if it will argue down the hundreds of other witnesses testimony

You ignored Totovader's answer several times, and aren't even respectful enough to spell a victim's name correctly

I suggest that you take the next 24 hours before you even attempt a reply.


I wont suggest that you learn the forum software, as I already know that you are just playing ignorant. Your silliness is not tolerated, and is insulting to the users of this forum


since you refuse to listen to the replies you've gotten, then its obvious from your presence, that you are simply trolling.

What is it with you truther? Do you honestly think this is a game? Do you honestly think that those who were there that day, LIKE when you take their quotes out of context and make them sound like they support an idea or theory when they dont? Do you think this is funny?

This will be my only reply to you; you and brasil can enjoy being ignorant, since you obviously think its fun to do so.

From now on, anyone who is just saying "IM asking questions" will go to ignore. the "just asking questions" BS has gone on long enough, and is not an EXCUSE or even a replacement to learning and critical thinking.

 

[tsig]

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?

It would be the child's game. I have an education beyond that.

 

[tsig]

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

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

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

Bombs could have been up your bum. Prove me wrong.

 

[tsig]

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.

Doesn't make sense to me??

 

[chillzero]

OK, let's steer this thread back on topic please, after two distractions in the past three pages. No more personalising of the discussion please.

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

 

[eeyore1954]

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.

so they weakened the support in the basement of the WtC so that when the collapsing building (over 100 floors of it traveling at a high speed)reached the basement it would not encounter resistance as it fell through the remaining few basement levels and they did this an hour before the collapse and timed it exactly to the second to coinside with the airplane hitting the building. Why?

Why were they so interested in it falling at near free fall speed that they would plant bombs in the basement? So Dr Griffin and Mr Rodriguez would have something to talk about on their respective speech circuits?

As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds.

i don't think so. Most would say it fell at least 30% slower than freefall. If the knicks lost a basketball game by 100- 70 would you say they almost won. If in the olympics 100 meter race one of the contestants finished in 13% would you say he was almost as fast as the winner even though he would have been about 30 meters behind at the finish line. Do you have any idea how much further an item will travel at freefall acceleration in the extra three seconds from about 10 seconds to about 13 seconds.

 

[Mobyseven]

Sounds like someone is not aware of what happened legally in the last 6 years.

How long were you away from the planet earth?

Gee, sorry. I must have been too busy actually studying law this year to keep up with the conspiracy lunacy.

So tell me, when exactly was the legislation passed that gives the POTUS complete, arbitrary, and immediately enforceable legislative powers?

 

[Totovader]

no you will respond i guarantee it, you will try to respond but you will be unable to refute my argument. let me tell you a little secret amigo. truth cannot be debunked.

What truth have you discovered, thewholesoul? Either you're JAQing off, or you have discovered some truth that you think supports your original claim of bombs in the basement. You can't have it both ways.

Go ahead- post your truth, and provide your evidence, and then I will not be able to ignore you.

Until then... you're insignificant.

 

[brasil]

Gee, sorry. I must have been too busy actually studying law this year to keep up with the conspiracy lunacy.

So tell me, when exactly was the legislation passed that gives the POTUS complete, arbitrary, and immediately enforceable legislative powers?

When was the legistlation passed that allowed Hitler to start murdering his own citizens and then try to take over the world? If you've studied law then you know what a "signing statement" is and that Bush has issued more signing statements than any president in the history of the United States. But I'm sure you've been too busy "studying law" to know what's actually happening in this country.

What was that Gravy said about an "open hydrant of ignorance?" (and if Gravy can say that to me without getting banned or his post moved, and it can become someone else's signature, then I can say it)

 

[chillzero]

Veering off topic now, folks.

 

[brasil]

What truth have you discovered, thewholesoul? Either you're JAQing off, or you have discovered some truth that you think supports your original claim of bombs in the basement. You can't have it both ways.

Go ahead- post your truth, and provide your evidence, and then I will not be able to ignore you.

Until then... you're insignificant.

"Good For You" Totovader, You should try JAQing off a little more. It would do you a lot of good. thewholesoul IS posting evidence, and it's the eyewitness testimony of people who "Corroborate Rodriguez's Claims," which is the topic of this thread, which you people are having such a difficult time focusing on. I have not seen you post one iota of meaningful content to this discussion since I joined it. All you do is pick apart and technically analyze the semantics and logic of cherry-picked, out-of-context statements. You're adding nothing intelligent to the topic, I don't care if you started it. I'll start my asking of questions when I'm finished responding to the inanity of the replies on here.

And finally, it's obvious to me and should be to you people: English is not thewholesoul's first language. I'd like to see you translate your condescension into Spanish, and how long you would last then.

 

[brasil]

Veering off topic now, folks.

It's my American duty to inform this "law student" about the "law" as it is actually being executed in the United States. To not educate this person would be unconscionable. I have also tried my hardest to stay on this topic and weather all of the personal attacks.

 

[chillzero]

It's my American duty to inform this "law student" about the "law" as it is actually being executed in the United States. To not educate this person would be unconscionable. I have also tried my hardest to stay on this topic and weather all of the personal attacks.

Wrong. It is your duty as a forum member to remember your Membership Agreement, which includes keeping threads on topic. If you wish to discuss this further, then start a new thread - under Forum Mgt would be best.

If you want to discuss Hitler, or anything outside of the confines of witnesses who corroborate WR's claims, then again, a new thread would be in order.

My comment was directed at more people than just you.

 

[brasil]

I wasn't aware that "asking questions" is NOT part of "critical thinking."

From now on, anyone who is just saying "IM asking questions" will go to ignore. the "just asking questions" BS has gone on long enough, and is not an EXCUSE or even a replacement to learning and critical thinking.

Now the stupidity here has reached the shrillest possible tone. You have just stated that "just asking questions" is "BS" (could you translate what "BS" means, btw), and that it has nothing to do with critical thinking. I hope I am not alone in my utter shock and dismay at the statement you have just made. Apparently you have made up in your own mind that you are such an authority that you are above being questioned. I think I have a job for you in the cult of the Bush administration.

Since you obviously don't believe anything I say, here are some academic links that may help you get back on track:

"Critical thinking is the art of asking questions"
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/

In this related link, notice how step 7 is called "imagine an alternative" and how that part of the process involves asking questions:
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/exercise.html

One system of classical critical thinking is called "Socratic Questioning." The wikipedia entry on it states: "Socratic Questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems."

Putting someone on ignore for "asking questions," especially an intelligent person who comes here with a completely different perspective on things, is tantamount to putting your head deep in the sand.

 

[funk de fino]

Now the stupidity here has reached the shrillest possible tone. You have just stated that "just asking questions" is "BS" (could you translate what "BS" means, btw), and that it has nothing to do with critical thinking. I hope I am not alone in my utter shock and dismay at the statement you have just made. Apparently you have made up in your own mind that you are such an authority that you are above being questioned. I think I have a job for you in the cult of the Bush administration.

Since you obviously don't believe anything I say, here are some academic links that may help you get back on track:

"Critical thinking is the art of asking questions"
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/

In this related link, notice how step 7 is called "imagine an alternative" and how that part of the process involves asking questions:
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/exercise.html

One system of classical critical thinking is called "Socratic Questioning." The wikipedia entry on it states: "Socratic Questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, and to follow out logical implications of thought. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems."

Putting someone on ignore for "asking questions," especially an intelligent person who comes here with a completely different perspective on things, is tantamount to putting your head deep in the sand.

Wow, is it actually possible to miss someones point by as much as you just did?

talk about a swing and a miss, you're lucky you avoided an injury there skip

 

[brasil]

My comment was directed at more people than just you.

Yeah, right. Then why choose my comment to respond to. I think this thread is a special case because we have myself and thewholesoul trying our very hardest to keep the discussion on-topic and civil, and we have everyone else trying their hardest to derail all of our points and sidetrack us into replying to their off-topic attacks and inanities. Any unbiased observer reading over this thread would see that not only has the thread-starter contributed nothing of substance to it, but has also attempted to sidetrack and divert anyone who attempts to further it.

This entire thread is a "strawman" set up by Totovader, who doesn't believe Rodriguez in the first place, and whose only function here is to use dirty tricks and semantics to shoot down opposing views. I can't imagine anything more transparent.

 

[brasil]

Wow, is it actually possible to miss someones point by as much as you just did?

talk about a swing and a miss, you're lucky you avoided an injury there skip

Case in point: here we have a "drive-by" comment, off-topic, which makes a bold statement of..... opinion. Funk de fino, how about explaining what the point was and how exactly I "missed it?"

 

[beachnut]

Since you obviously don't believe anything I say, here are some academic links that may help you get back on track:

"Critical thinking is the art of asking questions"
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/

In this related link, notice how step 7 is called "imagine an alternative" and how that part of the process involves asking questions:
http://www.tlc.murdoch.edu.au/slearn/resource/crit_think/exercise.html

But you sound like you are doing what these guys do.

Ask your questions, but stop spewing BS on this thread, get back on topic and stop acting like a 9/11 truth drone. Topic is Witnesses that Corroborate Rodriquesz's Claims. Can you stay on topic and not seem like the stupid guys in the poster?