Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[DGM]

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

So your saying one tower was "weakened" and the other was not?

 

[pomeroo]

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?

Assuming that you are very young, you should understand that the 9/11 Commission does not offer a scientific explanation of the collapses. That was not one of its stated purposes. Your baseless belief that there were explosives in the basements is contradicted by seismic data compiled by the Lamont-Doherty labs showing no secondary explosions. Now, you will reflexively reject these findings, but you must acknowledge that you reject them because you so desperately want to maintain your fantasy.

 

[pomeroo]

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

It is terribly sad to imagine that you may actually think that, but, in reality, you ignored it completely. Why did the cores remain standing after the rest of the structure collapsed?

 

[tsig]

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.

If you had more color I would believe you more.

 

[thewholesoul]

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?



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.



Post 349 is this:



Again, how is this relevant to your argument?



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



Which would mean...



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



Same direction? As opposed to what?

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



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



(Negating your "Truth #4)



Truth becomes may?



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



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.



Thank god your argument isn't true.



Curious: how does one rationally defend the impossible?




.

Truth: you changed your explanation in youtube. I can post the entire dialogue in order for everyone to see if you like.

I apologise post #348 not #349

Truth #2: was it true or not, yes it was, moving on...

My aim means exactly what it states, try reading it again, moving on...

Truth #4 and #5: you argue that they are not true because sound can travel through the structure – re-read truth no#9 and #10 – which addresses your objection.
I specifically addressed the two ways a person can experience an explosion (a) by sound i.e. hearing it as sound waves through the air (b) by touch i.e. by feeling it as sound waves, vibrations or shock waves through solids. Imagine your in a disco, if you can, you both "hear" the sound of travelling through the air and reaching your ears and tyou "feel" the sound waves travelling through the floor experienced as vibrations.

Your objection to truth #4 and #5 are not valid because when sound travels through a structure it is “felt” by the person touching or being beside that structure. you shadow boxing again.

truth #5 you say "Same direction? As opposed to what?" What a pointless question.

Are you saying that sound waves emmitted from its source travelling down an elevator will travel back towards its source? Truth #5 remains, moving on...

Truth #5 is relevant to my argument, its not my fault you unable or unwilling to understand it. But let me explain so as you may understand. If the sound was travelling in the same direction down the elevator shaft then it is not possible – repeat – not possible that David heard the sound coming from below. Why? Because that would mean that the sound passed him unheard(!!!) and then reversed direction (!!!) back towards the source it supposedly originated from. This is absurd and to believe that it is possible is to believe in the impossible.

Truth #6 #7 #8: remain true because you have not even presented your objections and more importantly they are sourced directly from the testimony of the persons in question.

The only way – repeat the only way - you can refute these statements is by arguing they did not experience what they claimed to have experienced.

Truth #9 does negate Truth #4: you present a word with no explanation behind it. A word which is not even applicable because truth #4 and truth #9 are not incompatible if they were you could please try and present your reasons.

T4 addresses the only passage by which the sound waves may have travelled down the air of the elevator shaft when the plane impacted the building. T9 makes another true statment about sound. T3-8 specifically address “hearing” not “feeling” the sound waves. T9-12 specifically address “feeling” not "hearing" the sound waves. “Hearing” and “feeling” are two distinct ways a person can experience a sound or explosion. i covered this before.

Truth #9 and #4 remain, moving on...

Truth #10. Is the statement true or not? Does stating “may” negate its truth?

I could have been more affirmative and say that the sound waves definitely did travelled down all of the building. But because i dont know that for sure i said it “may” have travelled down the entire building. T10 remains you have presented no valid objection, moiving on....

Truth #12 is a true statement based on science it is not a quotation. If you believe that the statement is not true then please provide your reasons. T12 remains, moving on...

You try to refute my conclusion by acknowledging the truth of the premises by which i reached that conclusion. You studied philosophy right?

Because totovader has not provided ANY reason which refutes or neagtes the truth of ANY of my premises then logically my conclusions still stand.

Totvader still believes in the impossible i.e. that the “explosion” mentioned in the testimony of David and Morelli were caused by the impact of a plane 90+ floors above because i have demonstarted through a series of true statments that it impossible.

I will be moving on however with my next presentation including more tetsimony. totovader talks philosophy but fails to apply it.

By debunking totvader i have successfully eliminated the possibility that the “explosion” mentioned by David and Morelli could have possibly been caused by the plane impact.

You mentioned something very telling with your opening remarks you effectively say that if all i am doing is pointing out that you can be wrong then i will be here forever. this troubles me greatly, after presenting quotations from your own mouth that PROVE you were wrong before, that PROVE you changed your story, you still believe that your not wrong!! This clearly demonstrates to me that you have the mentality of a fundamentalist – i.e. that your beleifs can never be proved wrong - even with reason. fundamentalists try to rational justify impossible beliefs.

you are unable to present a robust argument and are only able to produce catchy one liners. again if you cannot refute the truth of my statements then LOGIC demands that you accept the conclusion. please dont waste my time if you cannot refute the truth of my statements - or anyone else in the forum for that matter.

 

[Calcas]

If "bombs" were in the basements why were they placed there? Both buildings were a top down collapse. That much is irrefutable. Did someone actually try to argue that the childs game where you remove one block at a time to weaken the structure would actually be applicable here?

Again, the basement, or floors, where the bombs were supposedly placed didn't collapse until 90+ floors collapsed on top of them. What's the point?

Why people entertain such nonsense is beyond me. I don't even know why I read or participate in these kinds of discussions anymore...

 

[Slayhamlet]

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.

Let me make sure I have your analogy correct, because the way I understand it it is seriously flawed.

I assume you're making reference to a game like Jenga, where three rectangular blocks are stacked up upon each other, each level arranged in an alternating pattern. The players in turn have to carefully take out one block from any level except the highest and replace it on the top of the tower, without causing the whole thing to collapse. We'll forget about the replacing part since it obviously doesn't apply to the analogy.

Now, as I understand it, the scenario you're envisioning has the players take out, say, two blocks from the second or third level up from the ground, with the tower remaining standing. You are saying that this loss of structural integrity represents the sort of damage a basement bomb could have done to one of the Towers. Very well, that is good enough for the purpose of your analogy. So, by having the whole structure bearing upon one block near the bottom of the tower, it is now much more difficult for a player to remove any of the other blocks above that point without causing the tower to collapse. This much is obvious.

Are you saying that the initiation of the collapses of one or both of the Twin Towers could have been helped along by a basement bomb in the same way the damage done to the structural integrity of the Jenga tower at its base made it much more prone to collapse from a piece being taken out nearer to the top?

 

[brasil]

to everyone who has just posted: i do not believe anything. i make no claims about how anything happened. i have only one goal, and that is to prove or at least show that the government is lying, about even one critical fact, and that will be enough to open the floodgates.

this is why Mark Roberts' site URL includes "WTC7lies." it is because everyone on both sides knows there are some extremely weak links in the "official story" and the weakest link is WTC7. the testimonies of the men trapped in the basement are another gaping hole in the official story. all i care about are the weak links, and pursuing them further in order to bring the house of cards down. talking about all of the un-provable little details is a complete waste of time.

1) i don't care about remote-controlled planes or useless speculation about them
2) i don't care about bombs in other parts of the buildings
3) i don't care about mini-nukes, aliens, pods, energy beams or anything of the like

All I am concerned with is the small holes in the official narrative which I would like to see ripped wide open. I'm practically holding my breath for one of the major networks to do the patriotic thing and let Sibel Edmonds tell her entire story, unedited, on national broadcast television. Daniel Ellsberg has called her story "worse than Watergate."

and Totovader, you and I both know you made a glaring factual error in an ongoing mini-debate we were having. You confused WTC1 and WTC2 by posting a video of one and a photo of the other, to try to argue the same point. And yes, I care. You're flat out wrong.

 

[DGM]

to everyone who has just posted: i do not believe anything. i make no claims about how anything happened. i have only one goal, and that is to prove or at least show that the government is lying, about even one critical fact, and that will be enough to open the floodgates.

You believe the government is lying don't you. Make up your mind.

 

[thewholesoul]

If you had more color I would believe you more.

thanks for providing your insightful objections to my argument.

 

[thewholesoul]

and Totovader, you and I both know you made a glaring factual error in an ongoing mini-debate we were having. You confused WTC1 and WTC2 by posting a video of one and a photo of the other, to try to argue the same point. And yes, I care. You're flat out wrong.

correction, totovader is never wrong, my reasons in support of this assertion are as follows...

 

[brasil]

If "bombs" were in the basements why were they placed there? Both buildings were a top down collapse. That much is irrefutable. Did someone actually try to argue that the childs game where you remove one block at a time to weaken the structure would actually be applicable here?

Again, the basement, or floors, where the bombs were supposedly placed didn't collapse until 90+ floors collapsed on top of them. What's the point?

Why people entertain such nonsense is beyond me. I don't even know why I read or participate in these kinds of discussions anymore...

- I don't care why bombs were placed there, only to show that A) nothing rules out their placement and B) there is testimony that points to their possible placement there.

- Yes, that was me and the child's game is perfectly relevant: in a complex structure with redundant, distributed loads, you can remove parts of the lower structure without immediately causing a collapse. The removal of the parts will necessarily aid any eventual collapse.

If you can't see the relevance of using simplistic analogues to aid in the understanding of complex ones, then you must have been sleeping through a whole lot of math and science classes. What do you think those little colored balls with sticks to hold them together are used for when we learn about chemistry? Does anyone complain that looking at such an obviously "wrong" picture of what's going on doesn't actually help us to understand chemistry?

You're right, I don't know why you read or participate in these kinds of discussions either.

 

[brasil]

correction, totovader is never wrong, my reasons in support of this assertion are as follows...

yes master. totovader is never wrong, and these are not the droids you are looking for either!

 

[brasil]

You believe the government is lying don't you. Make up your mind.

It has been shown over and over by respected, mainstream journalists that the Bush Administration has lied repeatedly and suppressed information about issues of national importance. If you don't know this, then you've been sleeping for the last 7 years, just like the other poster who is supposedly a "law student" who was apparently unaware of Bush's record use of "signing statements" as a way of choosing to outright ignore the laws that have already passed.

With that track record, any sane person would have the same doubts about the Bush Administration's investigation and conclusions about 9-11. Keep in mind that NIST and FEMA are part of the Bush Administration, and overseen by it. That makes both departments of the USG suspect. Just look at FEMA's handling of Katrina as a perfect example. Was Bill Clinton's FEMA ever that incompetent? Not to my knowledge.

 

[tsig]

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.

Convincing you would be like teaching a pig to sing.

 

[brasil]

Convincing you would be like teaching a pig to sing.

Takes one to know one, and btw I'm an 18-year trained vocalist. Unfortunately that training has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, just like your post.

 

[chillzero]

Firmer warning this time. Back to topic please, or the thread will be set to moderated status. It's about witnesses in the Towers.

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

 

[SDC]

These guys... Brasil and Wholesoul... it's pointless to talk with them. Fundamentally, they rely on a negative "proof" (which isn't even a proof, in this case): it comes down to, "you can't prove my baseless assertions didn't happen." They try to use small inconsistencies in the actual evidence (testimonies about the confusion that resulted right after the planes hit the buildings) in attempts to dismiss the entire, overwhelming weight of the actual evidence.

They assert that they don't have to prove anything... The burden of proof is on those who support the "official" story. Why? Chiefly because they despise Bush and claim that he is, well, All-Powerful and All-Evil.

What foolishness. Wholesoul is probably 12. Brasil the same. Perhaps one of his parents works at Columbia, but I doubt he is old enough to hold a serious job. Or competent enough; with his enraged chatter, he'd lose any job in no time. As for his clubbing, and how the ladies admire him... I can only say I wish some adult authority (parents, guardian, older sibling, dorm monitor, or the like) would keep a closer eye on him. Those aren't safe places for kids.

And in my view it always comes down to this, and the Truth folks (gentle enough?) always fail: you have to provide a positive, coherent narrative of what you believe did happen.

Wholesoul and Brasil, would you please do that?

 

[SDC]

Whoa! Now he is a vocalist with 18 years training. At least, I assume that's what he meant. Well, that is terribly relevant.

Chill, or whoever is in charge, may wax mighty in her wrath and accuse me of being off topic. While I grovel whimpering before her power, let me say this in my defense: the statements he makes about his own "qualifications" are such as to call into question his overall credibility. More than call into question; fully refute.

 

[brasil]

Are you saying that the initiation of the collapses of one or both of the Twin Towers could have been helped along by a basement bomb in the same way the damage done to the structural integrity of the Jenga tower at its base made it much more prone to collapse from a piece being taken out nearer to the top?

Note: this is on-topic!

No, the analogy only goes as far the idea that it is possible to weaken the lower structural elements of a building without causing it to immediately collapse, as in the Jenga game. This is to help demonstrate that the building continuing to stand after bombs have gone off in the basement and before the collapse is not impossible. I am saying nothing about what initiated the collapse, only about what could have helped the collapse to be as fast as it was, and total.