Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[thewholesoul]

"Officially" debunked?

What's your NWO ID number?

thanks you for your insightful objections to my argument

 

[brasil]

I guess you don't know what a "fact" is then

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

That's not a fact, and if you think it is, then the burden falls squarely on you to prove that it is. Even if it were true, it still would not rule out explosives in the basements, because the blasts could have taken place far enough away from the victims, or through enough solid walls, as to not cause barotrauma (as TAM points out). In addition to that, I have already stated repeatedly that it's possible burning jet fuel was ALSO a factor in some of the injuries in the basements. No one has ruled out the presence of both in the basements.

 

[A W Smith]

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."

which is a demolition from the bottom. not a top down demolition

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."

It is clear that the bottom of the buildings structural elements remained standing after the collapse in many images of the aftermath showing intact perimeter column trees as well as core columns.

 

[Totovader]

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”

What "logic" did you use, and why did you stop using it?

If all you're doing is pointing out that I can be wrong- good luck. You'll be here forever.

What relevance does this have to the facts?

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?

My complaint was that it was difficult to keep track of the argument in the YouTube comments section, and you were posting 30+ messages a day which get lost in the format. When you came here, it was much easier to keep track of what was being said, and what reference was being made.

Again, though- I am struggling to find the relevance.

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)

Post 349 is this:

Well then- your error. Could you actually address the rebuttal instead of just ignoring it, then?

Again, how is this relevant to your argument?

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

I think you're repeating yourself, here...

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

Which would mean...

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

False. As I explained earlier- sound can also travel through the structure.

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

Same direction? As opposed to what?

What relevance does this have to your argument? Who has said that sound waves travel in opposite directions?

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.

I already addressed this claim, 2 posts ago. Others have as well- you continue to ignore the rebuttals.

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

(Negating your "Truth #4)

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

Truth becomes may?

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

Strawman. Please quote where anyone has said that the soundwaves "increased in energy".

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”.

Non-sequitur. Just because sound waves do not "increase in energy" with distance, that does not mean it's impossible for Morelli (who's name you STILL CANNOT SPELL CORRECTLY) to have heard an explosion.

That "logic" you claimed to have had at one point... it's run away.

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

Thank god your argument isn't true.

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

Curious: how does one rationally defend the impossible?

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

But since you're wrong... oh boy, what a day it will be!

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

Lie. You do not understand how custom titles work. I requested the custom title here, which has absolutely nothing to do with you, as I previously explained.

You can't get the quote function to work- but all the sudden you're an expert on JREF forum politics?

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

But since you're wrong- all those who agree with you are believing the impossible!

This is easy.

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

Hey, you're the one who believes in mythical invisible exploding bombs which leave no trace...

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.

I'm not sure how I can produce a sound-bite, here- but calling my position "philosophical" really doesn't help your case. It's more of a distinction than the crap you're spouting.

 

[Totovader]

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

Now? NOW?- I've posted this THREE DIFFERENT TIMES...

Putting the facts in scare quotes doesn't make them suddenly go away.

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.

Oh your hint was oh so tricky!

As I already explained in the comments- the bottom portion of the structure is clearly intact until the point when the collapse meets it.

It's really not that difficult to grasp. If what you were saying were true, then the building would not have collapsed the way it did.

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.

You caught me- facts are my burden of proof... Why you think that does not apply to my evidence is a mystery, though- especially since you have done nothing but whine about how I have apparently not had any...

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."

Since there is no evidence of bombs in the basement, and the building did not fall in a manner at all consistent with that claim, we can know for a fact that this individual was not involved in the event that did not occur.

Kudos on demonstrating that... But you're still in the negative for failing to address the video.

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

How is that at all relevant?

I will state confidently that A) your video proves nothing about the strength of the WTC lower structure at the initiation of collapse

Clearly, you're wrong. You couldn't be more wrong if your name was Wrongy McWrongerson.

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."

My evidence is not a single YouTube video- it's the entire collection of available data, it's logic- it's science. You... have nothing. You couldn't even address a very simple observation, here.

 

[T.A.M.]

That's not a fact, and if you think it is, then the burden falls squarely on you to prove that it is. Even if it were true, it still would not rule out explosives in the basements, because the blasts could have taken place far enough away from the victims, or through enough solid walls, as to not cause barotrauma (as TAM points out). In addition to that, I have already stated repeatedly that it's possible burning jet fuel was ALSO a factor in some of the injuries in the basements. No one has ruled out the presence of both in the basements.

Yes, but the burden of proof is on those who are trying to prove an alternative theory to the generally accepted one.

To that point, there have been no EYE witness accounts to the use of explosives. Those who HEARD "explosions" may have heard loud "booms" or what not, as a result of any number of other causes...the building was just hit by a jet airliner full of fuel, and many levels of the WTCs were on fire. The doors twenty, thirty storeys below the impact could not, in some cases, be opened due to the shift in the building caused by the impacts.

The absence of evidence of blast type injuries does CONTRIBUTE to the existing evidence pool. It would be made stronger if (A) more thorough accounts of patient injuries were available, and (B) if follow up studies were done, to see if in the subsequent weeks, people who were initially injured, returned (or did not return) to their doctor and reported injury from the event that were consistent with "blast type" injuries (such as barotrauma).

TAM

 

[brasil]

which is a demolition from the bottom. not a top down demolition

It is clear that the bottom of the buildings structural elements remained standing after the collapse in many images of the aftermath showing intact perimeter column trees as well as core columns.

You're basing that on the false assumption that one can't weaken the lower parts of a structure without the structure immediately falling down. A few pages back I made the comparison of this idea to the child's game with wooden blocks, where players build a tower and take turns removing the blocks. Whoever removes a block and causes the structure to fall loses. Even in a simple structure with blocks, it is possible for loads to be redistributed when blocks at the bottom are removed. This is probably even more true for a structure as complex as the WTC, where redundancy of load-bearing was specifically a part of the design.

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.

 

[Totovader]

You're basing that on the false assumption that one can't weaken the lower parts of a structure without the structure immediately falling down. A few pages back I made the comparison of this idea to the child's game with wooden blocks, where players build a tower and take turns removing the blocks. Whoever removes a block and causes the structure to fall loses. Even in a simple structure with blocks, it is possible for loads to be redistributed when blocks at the bottom are removed. This is probably even more true for a structure as complex as the WTC, where redundancy of load-bearing was specifically a part of the design.

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.

And you still stand by this comparison?

Please say yes...

 

[T.A.M.]

brasil:

beyond the lack of evidence, can you speculate as to WHY they would need to weaken the support at the bottom? I mean for the purposes of killing people, striking fear and anger in the people, and making the buildings a write off, so to speak, a complete collapse was not needed, so why bother??

TAM

 

[A W Smith]

Thanks for debunking yourself sunshine

You're basing that on the false assumption that one can't weaken the lower parts of a structure without the structure immediately falling down. A few pages back I made the comparison of this idea to the child's game with wooden blocks, where players build a tower and take turns removing the blocks. Whoever removes a block and causes the structure to fall loses. Even in a simple structure with blocks, it is possible for loads to be redistributed when blocks at the bottom are removed. This is probably even more true for a structure as complex as the WTC, where redundancy of load-bearing was specifically a part of the design.

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.

do you remember your earlier claim?

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.

 

[AZCat]

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.

I see you are making this claim without either an engineering background or testimony from the building designers. Please ask someone who actually knows what they are talking about before posting such claptrap again.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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...

Yes, I can testify to this. There are very, very few reports of such barotrauma - Caveat: I'm only doing a superficial (read: Internet) search, so don't take that as absolutely being definitive - but I've still found very few reports of such, and none of them trace back to basement victims. One case was clearly not even inside the towers, and another one presumably not so (both were emergency personnel).

This stands in stark contrast to even popular mainstream reportage of various bombings: I'm now also finding news reports of barotrauma from the Beruit Marine barracks bombings too, mostly being the obvious ones (burst eardrums).

Investigating in the other direction, reports of the victims taken from the collapse do not report evidence of such barotrauma, although we must take into account TAM's warnings about underreportage.

(TAM: As a digression from topic - I tripped over an interesting article out of the NEJM briefly describing the sorts of barotraumas one would associate with blasts. It's here:

http://www.simquest.com/HRC-blastNEJM.pdf

It's only tangentally on topic, as it doesn't actually describe any victims from the WTC, but it is an interesting primer on the subject).

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

TAM

Here here. I agree with needing further investigating, and experience has led me to concur with the "very difficult" assesment ; this whole thing's turned into too big a project for me at the moment. I think I'd actually have to recall my college days and go into that mode: Contact primary emergency care providers (i.e. the emergency departments around Manhattan and nearby borroughs that participated), and contact Depts of Health, both state and federal levels. And also see what the CDC has (so far, I'm finding lots of info about tracking lingering effects on emergency workers, but little else from them). But that's so time consuming...

 

[Totovader]

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.

*bump* FTW

 

[T.A.M.]

Beyond time consuming, the doctor patient confidentiality issues might make it all but impossible to obtain the info you wish now.

TAM

 

[brasil]

Yes, but the burden of proof is on those who are trying to prove an alternative theory to the generally accepted one.
TAM

I have never disagreed more strongly with anything on this forum until you made that statement. Saying this is to ignore the entire history of the world, and how so many historical events have unfolded when the "generally accepted theory" was never based on proof or evidence in the first place, but mere "authority."

A perfect example would be the Church and it's war against science, which still continues to this day. The Church doesn't care about proof and will not listen to it, nor let it sway their absolute authority. All they are concerned with is enforcing their view based on that authority. I hope I don't need to tell you how many people they put to death who were later proved correct.

Here, the "official story" is the Religion, Gravy the high priest of it, and Totovader a loyal and robotic soldier-drone.

The 9-11 Commission did not even attempt to answer how the WTC collapses progressed after the point of so-called "collapse initiation." What this means is there is no accepted theory on this matter! They were not up to the task, and that leaves a very large void in our understanding, does it not?

 

[beachnut]

Nothing proves that the WTC could not have remained standing with it's lower structure weakened, and in fact the architects and engineers who designed it would agree that enough redundancy had been designed in that it absolutely could have remained standing.

NO; The Chief Structural Engineer on the WTC said the impact and fires destroyed the building, and it was NOT designed for a high speed, high fuel load, aircraft impact! You have lost this point! Big time. Research the junk you post before you expose your ignorance on the subject; you just made up your post out of the crap of 9/11 truth junk. You make up stuff without any research.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Beyond time consuming, the doctor patient confidentiality issues might make it all but impossible to obtain the info you wish now.

TAM

That's true, and I did think about that. I considered asking if they merely had injury counts, or if such HIPPA protected info could be redacted, but again, that shows how time-consuming such research would be: The info wouldn't just be released, there'd be a process of negotiation, and a very good chance of being denied exists.

Like I've said previously in so many words: Pain in the

 

[Totovader]

I have never disagreed more strongly with anything on this forum until you made that statement. Saying this is to ignore the entire history of the world, and how so many historical events have unfolded when the "generally accepted theory" was never based on proof or evidence in the first place, but mere "authority."

A perfect example would be the Church and it's war against science, which still continues to this day. The Church doesn't care about proof and will not listen to it, nor let it sway their absolute authority. All they are concerned with is enforcing their view based on that authority. I hope I don't need to tell you how many people they put to death who were later proved correct.

Here, the "official story" is the Religion, Gravy the high priest of it, and Totovader a loyal and robotic soldier-drone.

The 9-11 Commission did not even attempt to answer how the WTC collapses progressed after the point of so-called "collapse initiation." What this means is there is no accepted theory on this matter! They were not up to the task, and that leaves a very large void in our understanding, does it not?

Yet again- you're absolutely, completely, totally wrong.

You seriously need to study up on the burden of proof fallacy^WP.

 

[A W Smith]

I have never disagreed more strongly with anything on this forum until you made that statement. Saying this is to ignore the entire history of the world, and how so many historical events have unfolded when the "generally accepted theory" was never based on proof or evidence in the first place, but mere "authority."

A perfect example would be the Church and it's war against science, which still continues to this day. The Church doesn't care about proof and will not listen to it, nor let it sway their absolute authority. All they are concerned with is enforcing their view based on that authority. I hope I don't need to tell you how many people they put to death who were later proved correct.

Here, the "official story" is the Religion, Gravy the high priest of it, and Totovader a loyal and robotic soldier-drone.

The 9-11 Commission did not even attempt to answer how the WTC collapses progressed after the point of so-called "collapse initiation." What this means is there is no accepted theory on this matter! They were not up to the task, and that leaves a very large void in our understanding, does it not?

No it does not. It is generally understood and accepted by the majority in a democracy supported by evidence and studies by thousands of experts the world wide that upon collapse initiation the structure could not have possibly arrested the collapse. Even mathematically in a best case scenario where column sections contacted directly on top of column sections in a collapse. Which the top sections clearly did not as observed by their rotation.

 

[AZCat]

The 9-11 Commission did not even attempt to answer how the WTC collapses progressed after the point of so-called "collapse initiation." What this means is there is no accepted theory on this matter! They were not up to the task, and that leaves a very large void in our understanding, does it not?

1. The 9-11 Commission was not in charge of determining the cause and sequence of the WTC collapses - that was assigned to the NIST.

2. They recently expanded their FAQ, conveniently providing the answer to your question.

10.Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.



1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

3. There has been an accepted theory on this for some time (although details are in dispute). If you'd bothered to ask instead of assuming there are plenty of people here who would have pointed you in the right direction.