Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Arus808]

wow, brasil talk about missing the entire ball park, by at least a hundred miled. if you bothered to read those articles, you'd see they actually support my position. that simply "just asking questions" is not enough to critical thinking

Asking questions, investitgating to find the answers and accepting those answers once you've narrowed down all the possibilities, and what is supported by verifiable sources, is when critical thinking is at its true potential.

Just asking questions is not in itself, critical thinking.

 

[chillzero]

Yeah, right. Then why choose my comment to respond to.

Ummm... no. You see this thing right here? That quote box just above these words? That's responding to your comment. See my original statement... it says "folks" - that's plural - to indicate that more than one person is being addressed. And to veer off topic requires a series of posts, not just one. As I said - any further issue with this, take it to Forum Mgt. Any further responses to this will most likely be moved there anyway.

Rule 11 of the Membership Agreement: Posts must be on topic to the thread.

 

[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.

Totvader, what truth have you discovered that either rules out bombs or proves jet fuel in the basement? What gives you the right to "ask questions" and "demand evidence" and you and others to tell me and thewholesoul that if we "ask questions" we'll be put on ignore? Could it be..... rank hypocrisy?

I have posted about Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli, and suggested that nothing in their testimony either rules out bombs or absolutely proves jet fuel in the basement. I have not seen anyone here definitely prove that the possibilities I raise are not within the realm of possibility. I have not even seen you commit even ONE theory of your own to print which would help us hone in on a possible answer.

I think that makes you "insignificant" as you said to thewholesoul.

 

[brasil]

wow, brasil talk about missing the entire ball park, by at least a hundred miled. if you bothered to read those articles, you'd see they actually support my position. that simply "just asking questions" is not enough to critical thinking

At no point did I ever state that "asking questions" is the sum total of "critical thinking," and the fact that I posted links which I'm sure you didn't even click on which explain the steps in the process, of which "asking questions" is just a part, should make that abundantly clear. It's not my fault if you chose to ignore the obvious.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Brasil, there are a few posts in the past that have some substance worth addressing. One particular example addresses your issue with proof of Flight 93:

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

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

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

Would you be willing to provide commentary on that?

And, R. Mackey raises an argument:

However, unless you can show where the 9/11 Commission, NIST, ASCE, NTSB, FAA, FBI, or any other investigating body actually made mistakes, then your complaints don't amount to a hill of beans. We aren't arguing the method of investigation, we're arguing its conclusion. That conclusion is, without a doubt, that 19 hijackers coordinated by al-Qaeda took over four airliners and crashed them deliberately, leading to destruction of numerous buildings and thousands of deaths.

Can you provide commentary on how the investigations conducted by any of the bodies listed above were in error. Of course, I'm not asking for an exhaustive list; rather, I'm seeing if you would provide specific examples of such mistakes. We all can then discuss those points to see whether they truly build to any sort of proof of government conspiracy or not.

Also, your arguments about Mackey's thesis regarding the jet fuel travelling to the basement were rather general; if you could demonstrate in more detail why you think the fuel 1. Wasn't sufficient, and 2. Couldn't have aerosolized, that would be helpful.

 

[brasil]

The questions which need to be asked first (and some of them have already) in order to help us understand Pecoraro, Morelli's, and others' accounts from the basements are:

1. is their testimony credible?

2. is their testimony consistent?

3. could bombs, jet fuel, or both have caused the damage they have described?

4. do the injuries they sustained with respect to their physical location at the time match the expected injuries for either bombs or burning jet fuel?

5. at what time did the witnesses report each thing they saw and heard, and what is the margin or error for those times (i can remember getting a wake-up call between 9:00 a.m. and 9:05 a.m. telling me for the first time that my city had been attacked. if i hadn't been sleeping, i'm sure i would have remembered the exact time down to the minute.)

I have a request: I would like to hear the thread-starter offer up some theories, opinions, and answers to these questions. I have already submitted quite a few of my own, and so has thewholesoul.

 

[tsig]

Totvader, what truth have you discovered that either rules out bombs or proves jet fuel in the basement? What gives you the right to "ask questions" and "demand evidence" and you and others to tell me and thewholesoul that if we "ask questions" we'll be put on ignore? Could it be..... rank hypocrisy?

I have posted about Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli, and suggested that nothing in their testimony either rules out bombs or absolutely proves jet fuel in the basement. I have not seen anyone here definitely prove that the possibilities I raise are not within the realm of possibility. I have not even seen you commit even ONE theory of your own to print which would help us hone in on a possible answer.

I think that makes you "insignificant" as you said to thewholesoul.

My hypocrisy rank is captain. We use electrons here. insignificant is as insignificant does.

 

[Arus808]

At no point did I ever state that "asking questions" is the sum total of "critical thinking," and the fact that I posted links which I'm sure you didn't even click on which explain the steps in the process, of which "asking questions" is just a part, should make that abundantly clear. It's not my fault if you chose to ignore the obvious.

I did not ignore it. YOU however are taking the stance of "just asking questions"> I know what critical thinking is, and you are not using it, as demonstrated by your posts here.

YOU are just asking questions, and when people REPLY to you with ANSWERS YOU ignore them. That is not critical thinking. When we ask that you search for the answers, you ignore that as well, and END UP repeating the same questions you've asked numerous times.


Did i state that asking questions is not part of the critical thinking process? NO.

Sorry if you can't read and understand what is being posted, and seeing things that weren't said.

AGain, YOU cannot just simply take the stance of "just asking questions" and then ignore the answers given you.

 

[tsig]

The questions which need to be asked first (and some of them have already) in order to help us understand Pecoraro, Morelli's, and others' accounts from the basements are:

1. is their testimony credible?

2. is their testimony consistent?

3. could bombs, jet fuel, or both have caused the damage they have described?

4. do the injuries they sustained with respect to their physical location at the time match the expected injuries for either bombs or burning jet fuel?

5. at what time did the witnesses report each thing they saw and heard, and what is the margin or error for those times (i can remember getting a wake-up call between 9:00 a.m. and 9:05 a.m. telling me for the first time that my city had been attacked. if i hadn't been sleeping, i'm sure i would have remembered the exact time down to the minute.)

I have a request: I would like to hear the thread-starter offer up some theories, opinions, and answers to these questions. I have already submitted quite a few of my own, and so has thewholesoul.

Can I haz facts?

 

[Arus808]

The questions which need to be asked first (and some of them have already) in order to help us understand Pecoraro, Morelli's, and others' accounts from the basements are:

1. is their testimony credible?

Would they have a reason to lie? Then yes their testimony is credible.

2. is their testimony consistent?

Which proves you've never ever participated or read a detailed report on how investigations works.

If too many witness testimony is too much alike or WAY too consistent, then there is a reason to suspect their testimony. Which is why REAL investigators know what to look for; not joe schmoe.

3. could bombs, jet fuel, or both have caused the damage they have described?

In reality; yes. But again, in this instance, NO EVIDENCE of a bomb has EVERY been found

you seem to GLOSS over that fact.

4. do the injuries they sustained with respect to their physical location at the time match the expected injuries for either bombs or burning jet fuel?

as told you several times, the injuries suffered is CONSISTENT with deflagration of fuel. why you continue to ignore this is beyond imagination.

5. at what time did the witnesses report each thing they saw and heard, and what is the margin or error for those times (i can remember getting a wake-up call between 9:00 a.m. and 9:05 a.m. telling me for the first time that my city had been attacked. if i hadn't been sleeping, i'm sure i would have remembered the exact time down to the minute.)

and everyones clock in the world are SET to correct time down to the second?

 

[Totovader]

Totvader, what truth have you discovered that either rules out bombs or proves jet fuel in the basement?

I've discovered logic, and noted your burden of proof fallacy.

What gives you the right to "ask questions" and "demand evidence" and you and others to tell me and thewholesoul that if we "ask questions" we'll be put on ignore? Could it be..... rank hypocrisy?

Because you are the ones making the claim. If you make the claim and then try and get others to do your research for you to substantiate your claim- you're self-debunking.

I have posted about Mike Pecoraro and Philip Morelli, and suggested that nothing in their testimony either rules out bombs or absolutely proves jet fuel in the basement.

...but have been completely unable to back up your assertions. And, in fact, have ignored this any semblance of a scientific inquiry in favor of this philosophical solipsism.

I have not seen anyone here definitely prove that the possibilities I raise are not within the realm of possibility.

Burden of proof fallacy, again.

I have not even seen you commit even ONE theory of your own to print which would help us hone in on a possible answer.

Why would "my theory" help you "hone in" on providing evidence for your own?

I think you just shot yourself in the foot, there.

I think that makes you "insignificant" as you said to thewholesoul.

Then perhaps you can remove yourself from the thread?

 

[Totovader]

"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.

There is nothing in here worthy of a response...

 

[Totovader]

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.

If this were true, then the building would have weakened at the bottom, first.

As we can see from the following video- NOTHING ABOUT YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE:



The collapse was not "almost free-fall", it did not weaken at the bottom, and it makes no sense at all to have bombs in the basement an hour before the horrible event shown here.

This is the third time I've had to bump this, brasil.

All you're doing is ignoring the facts and then spending all your time here whining about how no one will pay attention to you.

 

[Totovader]

I believe that brasil is using the classic appeal to pity argument in order to avoid the debate itself- all the while pretending to be fighting for it.

I highly suggest that brasil cease these appeals and instead address the rebuttals that are waiting for him if he really wishes to maintain the appearance of being interested in the issues.

*cough*

brasil is still at it.

 

[phunk]

Totvader, what truth have you discovered that either rules out bombs or proves jet fuel in the basement?

How about the fact that not a single person was injured in a manner consistent with a bomb going off?

 

[thewholesoul]

TOTOVADER OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED

I asked myself why bother presenting an extensive argument when Totovader does not even bother to read it but instead prefers to rattle off his well rehearsed sound-bites? I have taken enough personal insults in this forum which i will neither accept or return. Its time to inject some logic into this forum! One thing i know is that the truth can not be debunked. And the truth is on my side. So why not use that to my advantage? Below i will present an argument consisting solely of true statements (and of course the correct spelling to appease my new friend Grravy).

When Totovader entered my youtube account he stated the following, quote “Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact” and on another occassion “Explosions are not unlikely- being thrown to the ground is not unlikely. It was a plane impact”.

Truth #1 Totovader argued that the “explosion” mentioned in Morelli’s testimony was the result of the plane impacting the building.

When i used logic Totvader changed his causal explanation, he said, quote “Then I misspoke – the elevators are likely to have caused him to fall to the ground – the impact of the plane probably would not - I’m confused as to whether it was actually the first impact that actually caused him to fall to the ground or not”

Totovader then suggested i come here to this forum to debate and in the presence of his fellow debunkers he remarkably returned to his intial position?

In relation to the testimony of Felipe David who states, quote “The building started shaking after i heard the explosion below” Totovader's explanation was, quote it was “the vibrations of the floor (since that's where their feet are) would feel like it's something below” and what caused the vibrations?? Yes you’ve guessed it, quote “a plane hit the building”. (post # 349)

Truth # 2 Totovader argued that the “explosion” mentioned in David’s testimony was the result of the plane impacting the building.

My aim in this presentation is to prove through logic alone that Totovader’s causal explanation is impossible.

Truth #3 an “explosion” is both “heard” and “felt” by Morelli and David

Truth #4 the ONLY way Morilli could have heard the impact of the plane is if the sound waves travelled down the elevator shaft he was standing beside

Truth #5 Sound waves should continue travelling in the same direction away from the source

Truth #6 Morelli claimed the “explosion” came from floors above

Truth #7 David on B1 was standing directly infront of the same elevator shaft that Morelli was beside on B4

Truth #8 David claimed the “explosion” came from below

Conclusion: If the source of what David heard came from the impact of a plane above then David must necessarily have heard the explosion coming from above. Because this is not true, we are forced to conclude that the impact of the plane was not the source of the sound that David "heard". Because David did not hear the impact of a plane then Morelli did not hear the impact of a plane because David was closer and beside the the same passage and only passage through which the sound of a plane impacting could have travelled down.

Truth #9 Sound can travel through solids more quickly than air

Truth #10 Sound waves may have travelled down the entire building

Truth #11 Sound waves generated from the plane impact would decrease in energy over time and distance

Truth #12 It is impossible that these sound waves would increase in energy after passing through 90+floors

Conclusion: Because it is impossible for the sound waves from the plane impact to increase in energy after travelling down 90+floors we are forced to conclude that there was another source of energy which generated the “explosion” that Morilli and David “felt”.

Truth #13 If my argument is true and valid then Totvader believes in the impossible

Truth #14 Then Totovader has been rationally and elequently defending the impossible (on numerous occassions)

Truth #15 Then Totovader must change his causal explanation, if not, he is acting irrationally

Truth #16 Totovader got a nomination to game warden in this forum for defending the impossible

Truth #17 All those who agree with Totovader are also believing in the impossible

Question: What will your next causal explanation be? Santa Claus?

Of course if you have any objections or disagreements with any or all of the Truth statments outlined above please provide your reasons. If you can not provide sound reasons then please don’t waste my time with your philosophical sound-bites.

 

[Totovader]

"Officially" debunked?

What's your NWO ID number?

 

[T.A.M.]

How about the fact that not a single person was injured in a manner consistent with a bomb going off?

This is a good point actually. It was brought up at this forum recently elsewhere. At least from the rapid assessments in the ERs immediately after, the data does not seem to support the presence or barotrauma, post event.

Barotrauma, particularly tympanic (ear drum) would be expected by those near any form of high powered blast event, as has been reported by those near blast events from terrorist attacks where we KNOW bombs went off.

Now as I have noted to others, there are many possible reasons why such injury was not catalogued and/or reported, but it is "interesting" that no such injuries were reported...

I think this area could do with some further investigating, but it would be very difficult to do so...

TAM

 

[brasil]

This is the third time I've had to bump this, brasil.

All you're doing is ignoring the facts and then spending all your time here whining about how no one will pay attention to you.

Okay, since you have now brought some "evidence" into this discussion, it's time for you to back it up with some "critical thinking:"

Tell me exactly what information in that one video tells us anything about the condition and strength of the bottom of the structure. Hint: nothing whatsoever. If that is your "burden of proof" for evaluating the strength of the lower structure of the WTC, and whether it has been weakened or not, then you're not applying your same "logic" and "critical thinking" to your own evidence.

Although it's difficult to verify the authenticity of this quote from Mark Loisneaux, head of Controlled Demolitions Inc., I include it as an expert opinion on this question (considered one of the world's top experts, in fact):

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."

Professor Steven E. Jones references that quote (with source) in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" here hosted at the University of Minnesota Duluth: http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/Why3Dec13.pdf

I will state confidently that A) your video proves nothing about the strength of the WTC lower structure at the initiation of collapse and B) it is perfectly plausible and not refuted by any known evidence that the structure could have been already weakened prior to collapse. I'm sorry, if your only evidence is a single YouTube video, then you have no right to be calling anyone out about "evidence."

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

thank you for you insightful objections to my argument