Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[brasil]

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.

You are making a claim that cannot be proved to be fact. You are wrong to make it, and you are not getting let off the hook. In your video we are looking at the exterior of the building, not the interior core. The two parts of the WTC buildings are distinct and could be affected separately. A perfect example of this is WTC7, where the penthouse dropped first. What this shows is that the interior sections of the building were taken out first before the exterior. Had there been no penthouse, we would never have known from looking at the outside that the center sections were collapsing.

There is once again, NOTHING in your video that tells us anything about the strength and positioning of the interior load-bearing components (namely the core), and you have no credentials, expertise or other evidence of your own to back up your absurd statement.

The buildings were constructed as "tubes" fitted around a 47 column core. The is no reason why we would know what was going on inside those tubes from watching one youtube video of the exterior of the building.

You have nothing and you're going to have to do a lot better than you are to convince me, or anyone.

 

[brasil]

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.

Thank you, the section answering the question about gravitational energy is very useful and requires some study for sure.

 

[AZCat]

Thank you, the section answering the question about gravitational energy is very useful and requires some study for sure.

There have been several papers published and quite a few threads started here about the collapse sequence. Some of the papers are available online. Bazant has written several, in conjunction with other authors (including Frank Greening, our very own Apollo20).

 

[brasil]

And you still stand by this comparison?

Please say yes...

comparison = simplistic yet perfectly relevant metaphor. Please drop the semantic nitpicking for just once, and actually address the substance of my posts! It's becoming very, very, very, very boring.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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?

Brasil, in all due respect, TAM is correct. Sagan summarized this ideal in his statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The principle is correct, and validated over time. At risk of digressing from topic: The progression of medical knowledge over time validates this principle, as extraordinary claims without proof fail to not just progress medical science, but often fail to cure patients (i.e. treatments based on humorism), whereas extraordinary claims with proof advance knowledge and cure patients (i.e. Jenner's cowpox experiment, and later application).

We can all agree that your statement about authoritative arguments is correct: Judging a topic merely by who delivers the support is logically fallacious. However, it is not accurate to say that's what many of us here have done: Every one here with whom I'm familiar have indeed studied the claims of both the government and the academic researchers (such as the Purdue team that put together the impact and fire simulation earlier this year) as well as the conspiracy claims, and our stances are the products of our processes of evaluation. To be blunt, the conspiracy claims simply fail upon critical examination.

Also: (*Bump*) Pardon me, but I'm still curious about any responses you may have to the posts I pointed out earlier:

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.

Thank you.

 

[A W Smith]

You are making a claim that cannot be proved to be fact. You are wrong to make it, and you are not getting let off the hook. In your video we are looking at the exterior of the building, not the interior core. The two parts of the WTC buildings are distinct and could be affected separately. A perfect example of this is WTC7, where the penthouse dropped first. What this shows is that the interior sections of the building were taken out first before the exterior. Had there been no penthouse, we would never have known from looking at the outside that the center sections were collapsing.

There is once again, NOTHING in your video that tells us anything about the strength and positioning of the interior load-bearing components (namely the core), and you have no credentials, expertise or other evidence of your own to back up your absurd statement.

The buildings were constructed as "tubes" fitted around a 47 column core. The is no reason why we would know what was going on inside those tubes from watching one youtube video of the exterior of the building.

You have nothing and you're going to have to do a lot better than you are to convince me, or anyone.

that is incorrect ignorance as shown in this documentary. the core fell last

 

[Totovader]

You are making a claim that cannot be proved to be fact.

Holy nonsense. I am rebutting your claim by providing evidence. The evidence that I have been provided has been ignored by you.

You are wrong to make it, and you are not getting let off the hook. In your video we are looking at the exterior of the building, not the interior core.

In your efforts to move the goalpost, you have just shot yourself in the foot. If you want to claim that the interior columns (inner core) collapsed prior to the outer structure, then you will need to provide evidence for this claim.

Since we have evidence to the contrary- the fact that the inner core remained for several seconds after the building had collapsed- further debunks your claim.

The two parts of the WTC buildings are distinct and could be affected separately.

While they are... "distinct"- affecting one would necessarily affect the other. You seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the construction of the WTC- and I suggest you do some more research before making claims like this again.

A perfect example of this is WTC7, where the penthouse dropped first. What this shows is that the interior sections of the building were taken out first before the exterior. Had there been no penthouse, we would never have known from looking at the outside that the center sections were collapsing.

The design and construction of WTC 1 and 2 are completely different than the design and construction of WTC 7.

There is once again, NOTHING in your video that tells us anything about the strength and positioning of the interior load-bearing components (namely the core), and you have no credentials, expertise or other evidence of your own to back up your absurd statement.

Ad hominem. I do not need credentials to debunk your absurd claims- just proof. I have it, you don't.

The buildings were constructed as "tubes" fitted around a 47 column core. The is no reason why we would know what was going on inside those tubes from watching one youtube video of the exterior of the building.

You again shot yourself in the foot- if there's "no way to know" (which is a lie- but let's roll with it) then you have no evidence with which to base your assertions- in other words, you arrived at your conclusion, and are now admitting you have no evidence to support it.

You have nothing and you're going to have to do a lot better than you are to convince me, or anyone.

You cannot be convinced by the evidence- therefore it is not my goal to convince you. This is an error on your part. My goal is simply to state the facts so that others who may fall into the trap of ignorance that you have will not be as affected- and (provided they have the desire) will research the facts themselves so that they do not make the same errors you have.

 

[Totovader]

comparison = simplistic yet perfectly relevant metaphor. Please drop the semantic nitpicking for just once, and actually address the substance of my posts! It's becoming very, very, very, very boring.

Ah- so now it's a metaphor, and therefore has no bearing whatsoever on the scientific inquiry.

Got it. Clever way to retract a statement, I must say. And, your projection is noted.

 

[brasil]

Yet again- you're absolutely, completely, totally wrong. You seriously need to study up on the burden of proof fallacy^WP.

No seriously, you need to spend more time studying the issue at hand and what i'm actually saying and less time studying every one of the species of "fallacies." Perhaps you're so interested in them because you are so guilty of them yourself (the armchair psychologist in me speaks).

You are the one guilty of the burden of proof fallacy when you attempt to argue that a single youtube video, showing the exterior of the WTC at the moment of collapse tells us anything about the conditions in its sub-basements and it's core. It is simply amazing that you can continue this charade, while not addressing your own very clear errors of logic.

Explain to me, in your own words, how your video tells us anything about the foundation and core of the building, and how it also proves conclusively that the lower structure could not have been already weakened at the time the video was shot. Do not dodge the question, or you will be guilty of your own oft-cited crimes.

 

[DGM]

Brasil:
Please deal with the fact the core fell LAST.

 

[T.A.M.]

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?

was it not up to copernicuous, was it not up to Galileo to prove their cases? My point would stand up to anyone who is rational.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ONE TRYING TO PROVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE ACCEPTED.

Was the world proved to be round simply because someone said it was round? No, it was PROVEN to be round. The accepted dogma was that the world was flat, and this held true until it was proven otherwise.

TAM

 

[Totovader]

No seriously, you need to spend more time studying the issue at hand and what i'm actually saying and less time studying every one of the species of "fallacies."

There is no reason I cannot do both. However, your claim that the burden of proof is not on your shoulders is what is being addressed. Your ignorance on the issue has resulted in an incorrect conclusion on your part. I was correcting that with the facts.

It's not my fault you're wrong.

Perhaps you're so interested in them because you are so guilty of them yourself (the armchair psychologist in me speaks).

Perhaps... but since you have not been able to point out a single error in my reasoning, it's more likely that you're just whining about being so inconsistent.

I would suggest you remedy the situation with further research, instead of trying to blame me.

You are the one guilty of the burden of proof fallacy when you attempt to argue that a single youtube video, showing the exterior of the WTC at the moment of collapse tells us anything about the conditions in its sub-basements and it's core.

Actually, that's quite a nasty strawman you have built up. Regardless- I've already addressed your lies.

It is simply amazing that you can continue this charade, while not addressing your own very clear errors of logic.

POINT OUT ONE SINGLE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT I HAVE MADE​

... or retract the statement. Simple as that.

Explain to me, in your own words, how your video tells us anything about the foundation and core of the building, and how it also proves conclusively that the lower structure could not have been already weakened at the time the video was shot. Do not dodge the question, or you will be guilty of your own oft-cited crimes.

I have already done this- see previous post.

 

[brasil]

I"ll point out a huge error in your reasoning right now, buddy

Since we have evidence to the contrary- the fact that the inner core remained for several seconds after the building had collapsed- further debunks your claim.

While they are... "distinct"- affecting one would necessarily affect the other. You seem to be entirely unfamiliar with the construction of the WTC- and I suggest you do some more research before making claims like this again.

Congratulations, now that you are finally entering some actual substance into the thread along with your unsolicited lectures on logic and argument, you are finally digging a very deep hole for yourself and I am finally starting to enjoy this. To make this perfectly clear to anyone not familiar with this sub-thread: we have been talking about WTC1 and how bombs cannot be ruled out as having been used to weaken the lower structure in advance of the collapse. You posted this video and claimed that it proves that bombs were not used in the basement because the collapse "started from the top." You posted this video as "evidence" of your claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&e

Which WTC tower are we talking about in that video? Answer: WTC1

Which WTC tower did you just embed a photo of as "proof" that I was wrong? Answer WTC2

So, I will correct you with the facts: you need to learn the difference between WTC1 and WTC2 before you start attempting to put together an argument about either one of them, in this case WTC1. Please spend less time spouting your logic and argument diversions and more time learning how to tell the difference between the two towers.

 

[The Doc]

No seriously, you need to spend more time studying the issue at hand and what i'm actually saying and less time studying every one of the species of "fallacies." Perhaps you're so interested in them because you are so guilty of them yourself (the armchair psychologist in me speaks).

So by using your logic, someone pointing out a fallacy in another person's argument is ignoring what they are saying? How is one supposed to counter a fallacy then? If your argument contains a fallacy, chances are your argument is garbage.

I am also rather amused by your supposed psychology tactics. If your whole game is something rather similar to the clichéd, children's "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?" style argument, then I'd suggest that you have a long way to go before you start arguing with us adults.

 

[brasil]

Brasil:
Please deal with the fact the core fell LAST.

I think I have just more than dealt with that in my last post.

 

[The Doc]

To make this perfectly clear to anyone not familiar with this sub-thread: we have been talking about WTC1 and how bombs cannot be ruled out as having been used to weaken the lower structure in advance of the collapse.

It cannot be ruled out that there is a planet out there with super intelligent dogs that brew beer for fun on it. Is it rational to believe that simply because it cannot be disproved? Or is it more rational to not believe that until some solid evidence is presented that favors this assertion?

It's the same with controlled demolition at the World Trade Centers. You asked whether it was possible for bombs to have been used to weaken the lower structure in advance of the collapse. Well, yes. Technically it is possible. However, the evidence provided for this assertion is completely underwhelming, and the evidence in favor of alternate explanations that explain these sub-basement anomalies is far more convincing.

 

[Garb]

I think I have just more than dealt with that in my last post.

So your assertion is that they only used bombs in the basement of one of the towers?

Did they just forget the other?

 

[A W Smith]

wtc 1






the cores fell last in both towers

brasil debunked

 

[Totovader]

Congratulations, now that you are finally entering some actual substance into the thread along with your unsolicited lectures on logic and argument, you are finally digging a very deep hole for yourself and I am finally starting to enjoy this. To make this perfectly clear to anyone not familiar with this sub-thread: we have been talking about WTC1 and how bombs cannot be ruled out as having been used to weaken the lower structure in advance of the collapse. You posted this video and claimed that it proves that bombs were not used in the basement because the collapse "started from the top." You posted this video as "evidence" of your claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&e

Which WTC tower are we talking about in that video? Answer: WTC1

Which WTC tower did you just embed a photo of as "proof" that I was wrong? Answer WTC2

So, I will correct you with the facts: you need to learn the difference between WTC1 and WTC2 before you start attempting to put together an argument about either one of them, in this case WTC1. Please spend less time spouting your logic and argument diversions and more time learning how to tell the difference between the two towers.

I never claimed they were the same- I assumed you would not care.

Is there a difference? Tower 1 was taken down with basement explosives, whereas Tower 2 was a legitimate collapse?

If that's your claim- then yes, I was in error: I expected you to be at least somewhat consistent in your claim.

Your argument is still defeated, however.

 

[Totovader]

Ah- looks like A W Smith beat me to the punch.

As I said, brasil, your argument is still defeated. Kudos on trying to skirt completely around the issue- but it was all for naught.