Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[T.A.M.]

The answer my friend....

TAM

 

[DGM]

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

I thought you were just having a mini session with Totovader.

To be honest I find you points a bit tough to follow. You never seem to connect it to some sort of conclusion.

None of the witnesses statements really lead to the conclusion of explosives. Explosives with enough power to do anything (besides superficial) to the structure on those levels would do far more harm to the witnesses themselves. These people were in close proximity to these explosions.

 

[stateofgrace]

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.

Yet the same respected mainstream journalists are not investigating the Bush’s administration involvement in the cold blooded mass murder of citizens from over 70 countries on Sept 11th

Why is that brazil ?

 

[Totovader]

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

No you didn't! No you didn't!

Olly olly oxen free!

No tagbacks!

 

[The Doc]

Step one to increasing the amount of posts in your thread: Get a conspiracy theorist to post in your thread.

 

[Totovader]

Step one to increasing the amount of posts in your thread: Get a conspiracy theorist to post in your thread.

Step 2: Do not ignore them when they refuse to post evidence.

 

[R.Mackey]

hey,

Hello, thewholesoul. I haven't posted in response to you at all, so hopefully you can view this comment as one of neutral and objective critique.

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.

I have not. I have never, in my life, even speculated about what happened, when, to Mr. Morelli. There is no way you can say something like this and maintain that you have been paying attention.

The three "Theories" that you would play off of each other are not mutually exclusive. All three effects could have been present, or any one of them, or any combination of two. We don't know for sure, and we don't care.

It seems your entire argument is to set up what is known as a "false dilemma." This isn't proof of anything, nor is it a "debunking" of anyone else.

While you continue to fixate on minutiae, the rest of us have long concluded what should have been patently obvious -- that effects caused by the aircraft impact, including falling elevators, debris, flex in the structure, jet fuel flow and ignition -- quite plausibly explain everything witnessed by everyone. There is no reason to speculate about anything else.

The fact that you cannot even distinguish those you claim to be arguing with suggests that you are at a marked disadvantage in any investigation. In other words, please try to learn, rather than blindly sticking up for your own incoherent opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, but this does not mean that your opinion is or even could be valid.

 

[The Doc]

Step 2: Do not ignore them when they refuse to post evidence.

Exactly

 

[Belz...]

It is not circular reasoning because it is not circular reasoning!!

Priceless!

 

[Belz...]

Did I say that "thermite made these cuts?" NO. I quoted a website and linked to a picture. I was not aware until now that there was video footage of a cleanup crew guy explaining how they cut the steel at an angle like that, however, BEFORE seeing that video just now I had the intelligence and lack of bias to come up with the idea on my own. I'm able to consider both sides of a theory and find the best fit. I am not "defending" anything the way just about everyone else on here is. I am looking for answers. I now consider that photo 99% debunked based on the video I was linked to (the 1% doubt is that I can't be sure that column did not end up that way due to the collapse, or that it's one of the columns the cleanup guy is referring to).

It takes a real man to admit he was wrong, or even likely wrong. I will not bring up that photo again. I wonder how many people on here can be as unbiased as I am?

What's unfortunate is that you hadn't investigated the picture and simply assumed it supported your argument.

I am not "defending" anything the way just about everyone else on here is.

Please stop trying to guess what people think. You're not good at it.

 

[Belz...]

i know people say that to me a lot, i admit i'm not the brightest but i can hold my own in an argumnet.

If you can't format them properly, no, you can't.

 

[SDC]

I think WS and Br are mistaking their assertions for proof, evidence, and "debunking" of the generally accepted narrative.

Here is my assertion: the answer is blowing in the wind. But that is not proof or evidence, and I haven't debunked any counterarguments by stating it.

And again, I'd be glad if they could (perhaps) step back, take a little time, and then present a reasoned, coherent narrative of some aspect of the 9/11 events. It doesn't have to be a dissertation, or as detailed and extensive as Gravy's or R.Mackey's. But they have to make a case. Attempts to point out possible inconsistencies, or holes, in testimonies and the like about what surely was an enormously confusing and panic-filled day get one nowhere.

I've never been in a battle. (And I'm well past any enlistment age, thank heaven.) But I suspect they are enormously confusing for the participants. Certainly, people have been trying to figure out the facts of Civil War battles, with great documentation and testimonies, for almost 150 years now.

That's the US Civil War. Not the Russian, the English, or any others. But the same points apply.

 

[Belz...]

Now the stupidity here has reached the shrillest possible tone.

No truther seems to ever doubt that anybody who disagrees with him/her MUST be paid off.

You have just stated that "just asking questions" is "BS" (could you translate what "BS" means, btw)

BS = Cow manure.

"Just asking questions" IS BS because it doesn't seek an answer. It amounts to trolling.

One system of classical critical thinking is called "Socratic Questioning."

You're nowhere near Socrates.

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

You're not very good at this. Although we DO have very solid evidence that no bombs were used, we have reasonable explanations for what YOU call inconsistencies. You see, sometimes it's just better to use Occam's Razor than to keep looking for absolute proof.

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.

Brasil, if you're going to use bare possibiilties to argue your points, I suggest you stop right now.

 

[Belz...]

I have never disagreed more strongly with anything on this forum until you made that statement.

Then you have never been more wrong.

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."

Exactly, which is why the "alternative" theories won out: it was THEIR burden of proof, and they were proven, and ultimately accepted.

Your turn.

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."

You don't think it's important for you to be logical ?

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.

This isn't a game, bloke. Thousands of people died, that day.

to everyone who has just posted: i do not believe anything. i make no claims about how anything happened.

Irrelevant.

 

[Lurker]

No matter how much hot air you people blow, with your diversionary personal attacks and your "quote mining" of my posts to try to ridicule me, not one of you can demonstrate, even at the theoretical level, that there were NO BOMBS IN THE WTC.

You are correct, Brasil. I cannot demonstrate that there were no bombs in the WTC. Unfortunately, the evidence you have provided for their presence is pretty thin at best.

I have shown through numerous examples that it is at least POSSIBLE that high explosives were present in the basement, I have shown that there is a reason to do it from a demolition point of view, I have pointed out witness testimony that, while it does not PROVE the presence of bombs, it also does not rule out their presence and in fact points to their possible use.

I am sorry, I must have missed it. What is the reason for setting off bombs an hour before the collapse? Surely by thet time the collapse got to the basement no matter how structurally sound it was the basement had no chance of arresting the collapse, right? So why put bombs there?

Botton line again, is there is very little evidence that bombs were in the basement yet we have a tremendous amount of evidence that a fireball was in the basement.

 

[Lurker]

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?

I believe their stance was once the collapse initiated, the structural strength of the building was insufficient to arrest the collapse. Recall our discussion on factors of safety and impact load.

 

[Lurker]

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

...Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2,

Ah, not to toot my own horn but NIST has corroborated the equation I provided to you Brasil, which you questioned.

 

[SDC]

Some time ago, there was a video of a fellow who set up a model of the collapse using something like plastic office trays... Or did I dream that? (And if I did, why? what was my unconscious up to?)

 

[Lurker]

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.

Having played Jenga, I find your analogy lacking. If the Jenga towers collapsed from the top down then it would be better. But if they do, it has nothing to do with what was taken out at the base. Further, Jenga towers always fail due to structural instability and have NOTHING to do with failure of the members. I have yet to see one of those wooden pieces actually break in a game of Jenga.

Let me repeat that last point. Jenga fails due to structural instability while the WTC failed due to loss of structural strength. Two very different failure modes.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Some time ago, there was a video of a fellow who set up a model of the collapse using something like plastic office trays... Or did I dream that? (And if I did, why? what was my unconscious up to?)

No need to worry about your subconscious.





ETA: Hmm..the embed isn't working. Did I do something wrong?

Anyway, here's the link