Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[beachnut]

now would be a good time to bring out the facts

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.

If there was time to bring out your facts on 9/11, this is it. That is what he is trying to say. Now demonstrate your 170 IQ and stop using hearsay, junk, lies, and clearly no substance, to support your ideas.

It is also time to use your 170 IQ to do some research on the topic before you stick your perfect pitch toes in your highly educated mouth.

Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims is the topic you seem to be currently fact less on. Bring on the facts and use your high IQ to blast your detractors away. Show us what you got.

 

[SDC]

For an analogy to be acceptable, it needs some supporting evidence. You have provided none. Please do not use children's games as evidence.

 

[SDC]

Before I go do the family shopping, in this Nor'easter mess... (Note: family shopping, not clubbing!) I'd like to ask for these from WS and B:

1/ provide a coherent narrative of what you believe your interpretations of the witnesses prove. Not "you can't prove it didn't happen" statements; but your direct, positive, coherent narratives.

2/ Explain why anyone should listen to you. Yes, you. What are your qualifications? (I have none that apply, except for graduate degrees and publications in modern history. Yes, my dad was an academic engineer, and my mother's father a civil engineer, but the genes skipped me.)

For example, from experience, people here know that Gravy is an obsessive researcher/ writer. And his tour guide experience gives him a thorough knowledge of the site. R.Mackey has his own name online. Both have provided extensive and coherent narratives.

But it isn't about them, personally. It's about public documents. Why should anyone read your statements rather than NIST reports, or Bazant's or Greening's (or many others') papers?

 

[brasil]

1/ provide a coherent narrative of what you believe your interpretations of the witnesses prove. Not "you can't prove it didn't happen" statements; but your direct, positive, coherent narratives.

I'll attempt this, but the only way it will happen is if I close this browser tab and write it offline. Too distracting here. I'm just one person, so my credentials alone certainly carry no weight as far as submitting a proposed narrative. I'm more interested in questioning the self-proclaimed "master debunkers" and highlighting very small pieces of an alternative theory, backed by evidence (the witnesses in the basement) and seeing how thoroughly they can debunk it, if at all. No one has debunked the "explosives in the basement" theory. Simple as that.

Now on the other hand, let's say I was a "truther" idiot who believed in a mini-nuke in the basement, and put that theory up for scrutiny. I imagine someone would present all manner of pages of official and even independent data showing there were no signs of any radiation or radiation sickness at GZ.

The issue here is that some morsels of the alternative theory are not so easily debunked, and it's those I want to bring up. And now, all browser tabs closing... ttyl

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm more interested in questioning the self-proclaimed "master debunkers" and highlighting very small pieces of an alternative theory, backed by evidence (the witnesses in the basement) and seeing how thoroughly they can debunk it, if at all. No one has debunked the "explosives in the basement" theory.

[...]

The issue here is that some morsels of the alternative theory are not so easily debunked, and it's those I want to bring up.

You seem to be confused about your own position. None of the survivors from the basement of the tower actually support the notion that there were explosives in the basement.

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

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?

you have really impressed me on how many insults you can fit in a single posting. congratulations. i debunked the assertion that a plane impacting the north tower is responsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. if you can provide reasons why any of the true statements i presented in my argument are false - then do it. thats a challenge. i numbered the true statments to make it easy. pick out one and provide reasons why you think it is untrue.

next i will prove through logic that the compressed-air explanation is not possible and is not consistent with witness testimony of people who where in the basement taht morning.

then i will compile all the testimony of witnesses in the basement which do not support the fireball explanation of what happened.

take it easy

 

[Totovader]

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

No need to post the entire dialog- just quote the relevant sections where you think I was in error.

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...

This is not going to work. Going "I'm right, you're wrong, moving on" on every point is useless, pathetic, and a waste of my time.

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.

Proving, of course, that you contradicted yourself. I obviously read it since that is specifically what I commented on.

pquote]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. [/quote]

This does absolutely nothing to support your assertion.

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.

I hate to tell you this, but sound is interpreted through the ear.

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

Proving, of course, that your "truth" was non-sequitur.

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...

No, but that's apparently what you were arguing against. For whatever reason still remains unclear.

Truth #5 is relevant to my argument, its not my fault you unable or unwilling to understand it.

If you fail to explain it- it's not my fault.

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.

How you arrive at that conclusion is a mystery.

This is absurd and to believe that it is possible is to believe in the impossible.

... perfectly demonstrating why strawman arguments are so particularly pointless.

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.

On the contrary- an explanation for these events has been handed to you several times. You have ignored those explanations, and instead continued to propose your absurd notions. Much like your lies regarding Morelli's testimony, it's pointless to continue to re-explain these things to you. You go off on tangents, disregard the rebuttal, and then pretend like you have accomplished some kind of victory.

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.

Or, by pointing out that your misrepresentations of their accounts is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

So, I'll take option C, thank you.

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.

I need to explain words to you?

I explained why your "Truth #9" negated "Truth #4", you ignored it and complained about a word not being explained to you... why do you think this is adequate?

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.

Do I need to quote you?

Apparently, I do.

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

This is a lie- as demonstrated by your own statement:

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

I don't know if I can make this any more clear for you- you debunked yourself.

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.

You have given no reason as to why these distinctions are crucial to your argument, nor have you given any reason as to how a person can feel a sound wave... (hint: we don't)

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

Correction: 9 negates 4, Queen takes Rook. Checkmate.

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

Yes. Stating that a fact may have happened is pointless- it's equivocation. If you're trying to argue your point, setting up statements that have no evidence to support them is bad enough, but just simply stating that something may have happened and that's a "fact"- is meaningless... and if you base a conclusion on that (which you appear to have at least tried to do) then it's fallacious.

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....

Actually- you said quite the opposite. You said that it was impossible. Your evidence for such a claim: nothing.

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...

It's a strawman. 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?

That makes no sense at all.

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

Oh, I provided them- but like a child, you just cupped your ears and ignored them without any justification. Just stating "you're wrong, moving on" is entirely insufficient. All you did throughout this entire post is just restate your positions and ignore my rebuttals. That's all you have ever done throughout this thread.

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.

Incorrect. You have demonstrated through a series of contradictory and fallacious statements that your assertions are baseless, but that you are entirely incapable of changing your mind.

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

So now it's a good thing that I'm philosophical? A couple posts ago you said it was a bad thing...

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.

Like hell you have. You've just shown that you ignore any evidence to the contrary, refuse to provide any evidence of your own, and won't even begin to address the rebuttals provided for you.

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!!

It troubles you that I can be wrong?

Unlike you- I concede to the facts. If I'm wrong- it's no big deal. Proving me wrong certainly does not make your case for you, despite what you may think.

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.

That makes no sense at all. I just stated that I'm wrong all the time... so I'm a fundamentalist?

How do you think it helps your case to be so self-contradictory?

you are unable to present a robust argument and are only able to produce catchy one liners.

Get this through your head: YOUR ARGUMENTS REQUIRE NOTHING MORE. Got it? If you can't get past the VERY SIMPLE notion that you have NO EVIDENCE to support your claim, why would I waste my time with a... "robust argument" (whatever the crap that means)?

again if you cannot refute the truth of my statements then LOGIC demands that you accept the conclusion.

And what the does logic demand if I have proven your statements wrong, but you ignore my rebuttals in favor of simply repeating them?

What does logic say about that?

Does logic say that when the evidence is shown to you- and you willfully ignore it in favor of a fantasy- that you are a king of logic? Please- think for 10 minutes on what you have accomplished here. You have cupped your ears, arrived at a conclusion with no rational basis whatsoever- and then subsequently ignored everyone in this thread. It's astounding how pathetic your argument has been- but you march on as if you don't even care.

How does logic even enter into your argument? The entire thing is fallacious from the start- adding just a drop of logic causes all the little particles of your absurd lies to scatter about until nothing of your claim remains.

please dont waste my time if you cannot refute the truth of my statements - or anyone else in the forum for that matter.

Please don't waste my time by ignoring my rebuttals with "still stands, moving on". It's transparent and pathetic.

 

[twinstead]

you have really impressed me on how many insults you can fit in a single posting. congratulations. i debunked the assertion that a plane impacting the north tower is responsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. if you can provide reasons why any of the true statements i presented in my argument are false - then do it. thats a challenge. i numbered the true statments to make it easy. pick out one and provide reasons why you think it is untrue.

next i will prove through logic that the compressed-air explanation is not possible and is not consistent with witness testimony of people who where in the basement taht morning.

then i will compile all the testimony of witnesses in the basement which do not support the fireball explanation of what happened.

take it easy

With all due respect you haven't debunked crap. The fact that you think you have is irrelevant. I'll trust the opinion of the vast majority of experts from around the world over some anonymous internet ideologue, thank you very much.

Take it easy.

 

[Slayhamlet]

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.

Then you must agree that the collapse would have initiated at the point of impact, from the combined damage done by the airplane and the resultant fires, whether there were any basement bomb or not. The real purpose of the bomb then would have been to facilitate the continued collapse of the structure all the way to the ground. Besides the fact that not a single practicing structural engineer in the world believes it was possible for the intact remaining columns to have arrested the collapse, or even to have significantly retarded it, why would the core of the building stand for several seconds after the rest of the building had collapsed around it if it were damaged significantly enough by the basement bomb to actually affect the collapse?

 

[Totovader]

thewholesoul - This is the last time I will ask you. If you continue to posts these long, rambling diatribes I will no longer address them unless they are properly formatted with the accompanying quotes. You have misquoted me several times and then subsequently ignored the corrections- and indeed the posts themselves- by just inventing a new method of reference. At this point, it's obvious to me that it's intentional- as I pointed out before- and I will not continue to engage you in a discussion where you're doing this.

It is entirely a waste of my time to have to go back, requote what I said, and then format your posts for you just so you can ignore me a 2nd time.

I will no longer respond to any more posts of yours until you take the time to quote them properly.

 

[Norseman]

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.

It is you who needs to get your facts right, brasil. The video shows the collapse of WTC 2, the first collapse, WTC 1 is in the background in the video. The photo Totovader posted was from the collapse of WTC 1, the tower closest to WTC 7. WTC 7 is in the foreground of the picture.

The fact is that both towers collapsed from the top down. And that in both towers large parts of the core remained standing after the rest of the tower had collapsed to the ground. Please go and look at the available photos and videos of the collapse of the towers, both collapsed in the same manner. It is more difficult make out the the remaining sections of the core in the videos of WTC 2 because of dust and that the remaining part was lower than the part in WTC 1, but it is there.

 

[Totovader]

- 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.

Your claims were easily debunked by the facts- but you continue to dance around the evidence. It's quite amazing how far you're stretching your own story.

Instead of continuing this dance- how about you provide us with what fact or piece of evidence it would take for you to admit that there were no bombs in the basement?

Can you do that? You hint that there is nothing that would rule them out- but I wonder if you aren't just practicing solipsism. Think carefully- claiming that there is nothing would be disastrous to your position and to your credibility.

 

[Slayhamlet]

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 don't believe anything and don't make any claims about 9/11, yet you believe the government is lying about something critical, you just don't know what? Don't you realize how silly that sounds? How did you come to this staggeringly illogical conclusion?

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.

Are you seriously claiming Mark used the URL WTC7lies because he thinks the government is lying about it? What on earth are you talking about? Are you trying to be funny, or is your research really this shoddy? You clearly haven't read the document, and you still haven't found a single thing in it that Mark gets wrong and the liars of the "Truth Movement" he's exposing get right. Your claiming that both "sides" know there are weak links is risible, and shows that you are not acting in good faith.

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.

More contradictions of your first paragraph. In fact you do believe things; you just have no idea why, which is very disturbing. That is not the way honest researchers operate. That is the way charlatans and people with hidden agendas operate.

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

You don't care about them, yet you try to use them as arguments to "bring the house of cards down"? How much nonsense can you put into one post? If you don't care about these things stop basing your arguments on them. Simple as that.

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."

Well, if it's supposed to blow open 9/11 MIHOP or LIHOP, calling it "worse than Watergate" makes it sound like tiddlywinks. Obviously it has nothing to do with that. She herself never made any such claims except for incompetence. Furthermore she was never in such a position where she could ever have disclosed anything on the scale of a massive conspiracy involving 9/11. Her own actions speak against her having such knowledge.

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.

Fine, he made a mistake and thought you weren't referring specifically to WTC1. Yet of course we know, having debunked such nonsense hundreds of times, that both Towers' cores remained standing a significant amount of time after the rest of the Towers had collapsed around them. This is shown in numerous videos which have been provided. You are flat out wrong.

 

[tsig]

thanks for providing your insightful objections to my argument.

I gave it all the effort it deserved.

 

[Gravy]

Are you seriously claiming Mark used the URL WTC7lies because he thinks the government is lying about it? What on earth are you talking about?

If you extract every 33rd word from that document, it spells out PNAC's new plan for world domination, which hinges on a "New Squirrel Harbor."

 

[tsig]

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.

The towers fell by planes, fire and gravity. Sing all you want it won't change it. Oink!

 

[Slayhamlet]

I'll attempt this, but the only way it will happen is if I close this browser tab and write it offline. Too distracting here. I'm just one person, so my credentials alone certainly carry no weight as far as submitting a proposed narrative. I'm more interested in questioning the self-proclaimed "master debunkers" and highlighting very small pieces of an alternative theory, backed by evidence (the witnesses in the basement) and seeing how thoroughly they can debunk it, if at all. No one has debunked the "explosives in the basement" theory. Simple as that.

Now on the other hand, let's say I was a "truther" idiot who believed in a mini-nuke in the basement, and put that theory up for scrutiny. I imagine someone would present all manner of pages of official and even independent data showing there were no signs of any radiation or radiation sickness at GZ.

The issue here is that some morsels of the alternative theory are not so easily debunked, and it's those I want to bring up. And now, all browser tabs closing... ttyl

Are you going to complain and have a temper tantrum when it gets ripped to shreds, then? To be honest, it still doesn't look like you've done anything close to the requisite amount of research to make a case that isn't already dead in the water. Look, it's obvious to us that you're new to this. I have no idea why you expect to be taken so seriously when you're coming up half-cocked with long-debunked nonsense that's been around the block for years. Don't you think we've seen this stuff before? The "Truth Movement" recycles old crap by the bucketload, mainly because they can't come up with anything new. In fact, I can't recall seeing any new "smoking guns" for a couple of months now. Going by the standards of the previous ones, that's worse than pathetic.

 

[thewholesoul]

hey,

i did debunk totovaders hypothesis that the impact of a plane caused and is repsonsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. i provided 12 true statements.

why dont you go down the list, one by one, and provide the reasons why you think they are false. i would really appreciate that.

the purpose of my presentation was to remove the explanation that the testimony of morilli and david could not possibly be explained away by claiming that planes hit the building.

it is important to remember that mackey claims that compressed-air caused morelli to be thrown to the ground, grravy claims either a fireball or elevators and totovader argues that it was the plane impact. you would concede that it cannot be all the above, they cannot all be right. totovader is unable to explain how the impact of a plane could explain what morelli experienced - and i argued that it was impossible.

so i do urge you, in the spirit of dialogue and the search for the most plausible explanation of witness testimony to provide your reasons why my 12 true statements are false. after all this is why we are in this forum no?

take it easy

 

[T.A.M.]

I can tell you one thing...the explosions they experienced WERE NOT produced by explosives in the lower levels...the rest is not really of any concern.

TAM

 

[tsig]

hey,

i did debunk totovaders hypothesis that the impact of a plane caused and is repsonsible for the "explosion" both morelli and david experienced. i provided 12 true statements.

why dont you go down the list, one by one, and provide the reasons why you think they are false. i would really appreciate that.

the purpose of my presentation was to remove the explanation that the testimony of morilli and david could not possibly be explained away by claiming that planes hit the building.

it is important to remember that mackey claims that compressed-air caused morelli to be thrown to the ground, grravy claims either a fireball or elevators and totovader argues that it was the plane impact. you would concede that it cannot be all the above, they cannot all be right. totovader is unable to explain how the impact of a plane could explain what morelli experienced - and i argued that it was impossible.

so i do urge you, in the spirit of dialogue and the search for the most plausible explanation of witness testimony to provide your reasons why my 12 true statements are false. after all this is why we are in this forum no?

take it easy

How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see?