Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[brasil]

I don't know if anyone will 'dissect' your post, considering it is heading off topic again.

Your bias is so one-sided as to be almost comical. Before you've even had time to read my post (other than the last line) you say it's off-topic, while ignoring a blatantly off-topic post by beachnut that is filled with personal attacks against thewholesoul. LOL. My post IS on-topic because:

A) it comments on the factors at play when witnesses have potentially incriminating, corroborating evidence and uses a real-world example about what can happen to witnesses with information embarrassing to the government.

B) it presents a plausible theory for bombs in the basement to explain the witness testimonies of Pecoraro, Rodriguez, Morelli, and others.

C) i have been challenged repeatedly to provide an alternative theory that would explain a reason for planting bombs in the basement, and i've done that.

 

[brasil]

Speaking as someone who encouraged Brasil to do some research and come back with an extensive narrative, I'm very disappointed. This is just a diatribe on the level of "I'm rubber you're glue."

That is not the "research" or "extensive narrative" I was referring to. It was something I only thought about after reading beachnut's post. However, I think I raised some very valid points about the "big picture," and I also think my alternative theory is well within the scope of something the terrorists would plan . In light of the 1993 attack, I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise, and you certainly haven't yourself.

 

[thewholesoul]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level the following people corroborate this particular claim.

1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia B1 "we heard a massive explosion" below
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion”
3 – Giambanco B1 “We heard the explosion”
4 - Bobby Hall B1 “the first explosion”
5 – Jose Sanchez B4 ““It sounded like a bomb”
6 – Philip Morelli B4 “the explosion”
7 – Hurseley Lever B4 “i heard a bomb”
8 – Edward McCabe B4 “door explodes of hinges”
9 - woman beyond the door says “a bomb blew up their office”
10- Arturo Griffith car 50 freight elevator “i felt the explosion”
11- Marlene Cruz car 50 freight elevator “I heard that explosion”

There is no debate that these witnesses who reported hearing an explosion are corroborrating with william rodriguez. But the question is what CAUSED the explosion they all claimed to hear?

To be honest i am not wedded to the notion that it was caused by explosives, i do enjoy debate however and the function of this forum is to arrive at some sort of conclusion. I am pleased that i debunked totovader’s claim that the “explosion” heard and felt by these witnesses was caused by a plane impacting 90+floors above. That is simply impossible. But the fireball explanation is hands down a far more plausible scenario.

I still believe that 911 was an inside job, i just dont think that the dynamic descent of 6 floors is capable of eliminating the vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse. I have no calculations of course but should the vertical capcity of the steel core column not count for something? Why would failure of the connections cause the core to fall?

Anyways i will try present my next post on the fireball versus exposives theory. To be frank i think the former is alomost impossible to debunk. If i cannot then i cannot but like i said i am not wedded to the conviction that explosives were used.

 

[chillzero]

I read the full post, and I think you are stretching it to consider it on topic.

 

[T.A.M.]

brasil:

EVIDENCE...EVIDENCE...EVIDENCE.

I can create a dozen seemingly "plausible" theories or scenarios that could fit into the 9/11 scenario, but if I have no proof then they are just speculation, conjecture, or more accurately...FICTION.

Bring the evidence, or move on to the next topic is my suggestion.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level the following people corroborate this particular claim.

1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia B1 "we heard a massive explosion" below
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion”
3 – Giambanco B1 “We heard the explosion”
4 - Bobby Hall B1 “the first explosion”
5 – Jose Sanchez B4 ““It sounded like a bomb”
6 – Philip Morelli B4 “the explosion”
7 – Hurseley Lever B4 “i heard a bomb”
8 – Edward McCabe B4 “door explodes of hinges”
9 - woman beyond the door says “a bomb blew up their office”
10- Arturo Griffith car 50 freight elevator “i felt the explosion”
11- Marlene Cruz car 50 freight elevator “I heard that explosion”

There is no debate that these witnesses who reported hearing an explosion are corroborrating with william rodriguez. But the question is what CAUSED the explosion they all claimed to hear?

To be honest i am not wedded to the notion that it was caused by explosives, i do enjoy debate however and the function of this forum is to arrive at some sort of conclusion. I am pleased that i debunked totovader’s claim that the “explosion” heard and felt by these witnesses was caused by a plane impacting 90+floors above. That is simply impossible. But the fireball explanation is hands down a far more plausible scenario.

I still believe that 911 was an inside job, i just dont think that the dynamic descent of 6 floors is capable of eliminating the vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse. I have no calculations of course but should the vertical capcity of the steel core column not count for something? Why would failure of the connections cause the core to fall?

Anyways i will try present my next post on the fireball versus exposives theory. To be frank i think the former is alomost impossible to debunk. If i cannot then i cannot but like i said i am not wedded to the conviction that explosives were used.

In case you missed my post earlier (it may have been addressed to wtc), or in another thread, I will restate...

I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH YOU THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE, INCLUDING WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, HEARD AN EXPLOSION, OR EXPLOSIONS, WHILE IN THE BASEMENT LEVELS OF THE WTC ON 9/11.

TAM

 

[Belz...]

I think "truthers" are stupid, and I think "debunkers" are just as stupid

You haven't been closely following, then.

Wow, threatened at gunpoint and told to cooperate, and not because he knew too much about mass murder or torture, but because he knew that the communications equipment on a $640 million dollar vessel was riddled with defects and insecure. He knew too much about a defense contract.

So goes the claim. But even if it's true, what does this have to do with anything ?

Now if the Coast Guard is capable of putting a gun to someone's chest over something like that, just imagine what the government is capable of doing to cover-up something much worse.

Non sequitur.

This is not evidence that the government planned and executed 9-11, it's evidence of how governments operate in the real-world, as opposed to the debunker fantasy world where your government has nothing to hide, cares about your safety, and never lies.

Strawman.

Just about every "debunker" on here thinks it has to be either jet fuel, or bombs.

Mostly, because once you have the one, why would you need the other ?

Has anyone considered, assuming that 9-11 really was the work of 19 hijackers, that maybe they also planted a bomb in the basement

Since everybody agrees that the towers would be expected to collapsed with just the plane crashes and subsequent fires, and considering the supposed agenda, why would they ?

Why are people like R.Mackey trying so hard to "prove" that jet fuel caused all of the damage in the basement within seconds of the impacts?

Because you're wrong.

Here's a perfectly valid theory that is a lot easier to explain than R.Mackey's: Radio detonators and bombs were planted in the WTC basements (in a car, truck, or somewhere else). Co-conspirators waited within radio-triggering range early in the morning and waited for the arrival of the planes. Seconds before impact the bombs were set off. Why? Perhaps they thought if they weakened the lower structure enough, then hit the towers high enough up with enough force, they would fell the buildings like trees.

You think that's "perfectly" valid ? How about ignoring reality altogether and say aliens did it ?

I don't care if that sounds like a stupid, implausible idea, so don't quote-mine this sentence and tell me it is.

You don't care if your theory is stupid and implausible ?

The most innocent the USG could possibly be is that they ignored multiple warnings, were already monitoring the hijackers, knew that planes could be flown into buildings (for chrissakes, they wargamed that very scenario on 9-11) and then were utterly incompetent and unprepared on 9-11.

That's an outright lie.

 

[brasil]

"Swing Dangler is the source for this tripe." "
He is a fact less 9/11 truth lie pusher"
"Swing, you dirty dog."
"you are pathetic for posting his tripe"
"I would rate your evidence as junk."
"This is pathetic"
"You are spreading second hand hearsay"
"Why are you spewing the lies of 9/11 truth"
"do you find it too hard to make up your own lies?"
"most of your false information is old stuff"
"you fell into a putrid pack of pathetic lies"
"Like zealots saving us from witches"
"JAQ becomes the way to recruit the dim wits with promise of enlightenment"
"Just hearsay junk talk from a few idiots"
"fools too stupid to understand any aspect on 9/11"
"as if they had joined some cult and enjoyed being stupid"
"they are supporting some of the dumbest ideas on the face of the earth"
"only idiots fail to see that millions of engineers do not support their lies"
"Real experts are not walking the street listening to idiots"
"You need to ask them, not rant on the comer of the internet spewing half baked ideas about 9/11 made up by moronic biased nit wits."
"how were you fooled by this group of idiots"
"I googled the stuff you said, and I found the dumbest junk on the internet."
"find some real information and cure your case of terminal stupidity on 9/11."

Oh really chillzero? If beachnut is so on topic then I guess it's okay to quote and reply to him. My reply to beachnut: actually, nah... not really. i'll check with Swing Dangler. nope. I thought they made some good points. they're not idiots. ok, i'll ask them. I've been told i'm pretty smart. thanks.

 

[Totovader]

How is your rant even on-topic and not just another long-winded personal attack? Isn't there another thread somewhere for "ranting and raving?" I think "truthers" are stupid, and I think "debunkers" are just as stupid - they're just two biased sides of the same coin with agendas. Then there are the people who sincerely are looking for evidence and are willing to revise their theories and conclusions when new information comes along.

Perfect example (again) of the ambiguous middle ground fallacy. You have been entirely unable to demonstrate how the "debunkers" are wrong- at all- but continue to try and maintain that you're somewhere "in the middle", all the while contradicting your JAQ attitude with assertions you cannot support. You're again throwing a temper tantrum because your claims were so easily debunked. You need to take responsibility for that instead of pretending like it's everyone else's fault.

From your attitude, I don't see any likelihood that you fall into this third, open-minded group.

You're certainly in no position to make this observation on anyone.

On the other hand, after about a week of reading 911 debunking sites, I'm starting to much more seriously consider a gravity-propelled collapse of the WTC towers than a "bombs all over the building" theory, but still I have no reason so far to rule out a bomb or bombs in the basement, for reasons I will explain further down.

Remember that bias you were talking about? Your agenda is quite clear from this statement.

Nothing will rule out "bombs in the basement" for you. That's your problem, not anyone else's.

Here's an example that pertains to this thread, in that it shows what can and does happen to witnesses and whistleblowers in the real-world. In the "debunker" worldview, witness or expert/whistleblower intimidation by the authorities never happens, and all "official" sources can be trusted 100%. This is an absolutely ridiculous, out-of-touch with reality proposition as demonstrated by this story:

Coast Guard Employee Alleges Retaliation
Whistle-Blower Seeks Probe of His Charges Against Staff of DHS Inspector General
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...12/15/AR2007121501400.html?hpid=moreheadlines

"A civilian U.S. Coast Guard employee was placed on paid administrative leave, threatened with a criminal investigation and confronted by guards at gunpoint in retaliation for disclosing information embarrassing to the service's troubled fleet replacement program, his attorney said."

So- when individuals are threatened... the truth is exposed?

Thanks for debunking your own position. Now multiply this by about 8,000 and see if you can keep your head from exploding because of the straight-up absurdity of your claim.

Wow, threatened at gunpoint and told to cooperate, and not because he knew too much about mass murder or torture, but because he knew that the communications equipment on a $640 million dollar vessel was riddled with defects and insecure. He knew too much about a defense contract.

Again- he knew "too much" (according to you) about a defense contract, so your absurd accusation is that this type of behavior is not only commonplace, but standard practice- and therefore proves that the government was completely involved in carrying out the murder of 3000 people?

There's so many "holes" and "inconsistencies" in that line of thinking that I don't know where to begin. Hopefully just forcing you to think about it will help you in your own admission of ignorance.

You indicated above that you have been looking for evidence- this non-sequitur nonsense shows that you are doing quite the opposite: you've arrived at your conclusion, which (for the sake of saving face) you have reduced to "a possibility" or something you "can't rule out" publicly, but are clearly desperate to find any sort of disparate fact to try and weave in. It's painfully transparent, and the individuals here are seasoned and smart enough to see through it.

Now if the Coast Guard is capable of putting a gun to someone's chest over something like that, just imagine what the government is capable of doing to cover-up something much worse.

They are unsuccessful at this "small level". What makes you think complicating the problem and making the "offense" a million times worse supports your theory?

This is not evidence that the government planned and executed 9-11, it's evidence of how governments operate in the real-world, as opposed to the debunker fantasy world where your government has nothing to hide, cares about your safety, and never lies.

Here we see a much bigger problem with your error: bigotry. I discuss this in more detail on my blog (Conspiracism and Bigotry), but in short, you're committing the fallacy of division. An individual who works for "the government" is not "the government". And the actions of that individual are unique to the individual (and dare I say, the situation)- to then equate that action to some kind of omniscient and collective consciousness known as "the government" is a startling feat of ignorance. In reality, the government is slow, bureaucratic, self-contradictory, and often quite ignorant. That's why 9/11 happened in the first place. (coincidentally, contradicting your claim that "both bombs and planes" could have happened)

Just about every "debunker" on here thinks it has to be either jet fuel, or bombs.

Strawman. "Just about every debunker" here concedes to the evidence. It's not up to "us" to entertain your fantasies- it's up to "us" to recognize that the evidence clearly does not support them.

As a public service, we patiently provide that information for you when you completely muck it up- in only a way that people like you can.

Has anyone considered, assuming that 9-11 really was the work of 19 hijackers, that maybe they also planted a bomb in the basement because they thought it would help destory the towers, and never imagined that the planes alone could topple the towers? Why are people like R.Mackey trying so hard to "prove" that jet fuel caused all of the damage in the basement within seconds of the impacts?

R. Mackey needs to make no "attempt"- he's simply recognizing the evidence and providing the logical conclusion. Again, you seem to be about 6 years behind. 9/11/2001 was not yesterday. There have been a ton of studies, calculations, errors, further findings, research, researchers, etc involved since the event trying to find out specifically what happened.

Here's the important part: Not a single shred of evidence suggests that bombs were in any way responsible for the collapse of the Towers, and- indeed- were not even present.

Did you catch that? Let me repeat it: Not a single shred of evidence suggests that bombs were in any way responsible for the collapse of the Towers, and- indeed- were not even present.

If you don't believe me- then stop avoiding my previous question, and explain what it would take for you to admit you're wrong. When you do that- we can look for that specific evidence and put this stupid fantasy of yours to rest, for good.

Of course... I'm not holding my breath.

Here's a perfectly valid theory that is a lot easier to explain than R.Mackey's: Radio detonators and bombs were planted in the WTC basements (in a car, truck, or somewhere else).

Already problems with that "perfectly valid theory": 1) it's not a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word. 2) Occam's Razor (despite what you try to claim) does not indicate that this is the "easier" explanation. 3) "Radio detonators" would have been highly susceptible to the radios that were being used in immediate fire-fighting and police efforts. The likelihood that these "radio bombs" would have detonated before the actual building collapse increases exponentially with every single radio transmission. Your theory is not the least bit "easier". Oh... and then there's that part about not having a single shred of evidence to support it.

Co-conspirators waited within radio-triggering range early in the morning and waited for the arrival of the planes. Seconds before impact the bombs were set off. Why? Perhaps they thought if they weakened the lower structure enough, then hit the towers high enough up with enough force, they would fell the buildings like trees. I don't care if that sounds like a stupid, implausible idea, so don't quote-mine this sentence and tell me it is. To a terrorist, it might sound like a great idea, and we have witness statements about sounds and damage that in no way conclusively contradicts this theory.

As has already been demonstrated to you- the "bombs in the basement" theory holds no water. The lower sections of the building were structurally sound until the point that the collapse met up with them. Furthermore, this truck would have had to have passed security- and then left absolutely no trace of its existence in the rubble.

Again- not the "easier" explanation.

As has been pointed out before, it wasn't the first time they tried to bomb the basement of the WTC. Don't try to tell me these people were able to predict ahead of time that they were going to destroy 3 buildings in one day just with planes and boxcutters.

Just planes and boxcutters?

The ignorance- and can I just say the outright stupidity- of such a statement is both troubling and insulting to the victims of September 11th. Take pot-shots at the ineptitude of the government in your spare time, but claiming that these "people" were just a bunch of "planes and boxcutters" is pathetic.

Bin Laden has made several statements regarding what he expected, and how happy he was with the result. I will defer to his statements as to what you should know about the expectations.

Again- however- this line of accusations that they would "do it again" requires ignorance of not only their goals, but of their deadly ability to learn. It also requires the belief that we did not learn- we did not increase security, etc. That belief would also not be based on any facts.

Will anyone here admit to being smart enough to predict such a thing possible prior to 9-11?

I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

If they acted alone, then their friends back home must have been dancing for joy at how wildly successful they were.

Your ignorance truly precedes you. I suggest you spend some of your valuable research time on the comments that Bin Laden has made regarding the results of the operation.

There is just no way 9-11 is a "black or white" issue with either the "truthers" correct, or the "debunkers" correct. There is too much evidence of lying on the part of the government and too many valid motives to leverage the events of that day to pursue pre-existing agendas.

Yet none of that evidence supports any wild assertions you have been making. It appears as though your agenda has quickly met its end.

The most innocent the USG could possibly be is that they ignored multiple warnings, were already monitoring the hijackers, knew that planes could be flown into buildings (for chrissakes, they wargamed that very scenario on 9-11) and then were utterly incompetent and unprepared on 9-11. With all that was at stake, that alone is a reason for a massive cover-up. It does not get any prettier than that, and if anything I'm saying does not jibe with the "reality-based" community, then I'd like to hear it. Rational and polite replies only, no insults or totovader-esque technical dissections of my logic thank you.

Again, an ambiguous middle ground fallacy- on the one hand you set up a ridiculous conspiracy and on the other complete and total ignorance, and then claim that somewhere in the middle truth must exist. Your support for this (and your failure to address any evidence to the contrary) has been painstakingly documented by the folks here. You have been informed- repeatedly and consistently- that your theory does not conform to reality, and your attempts to ignore that have not gone unnoticed.

If you do not want technical dissections of your so-called logic- then I suggest you post in the Loose Change Forums. There you will find complete and unquestioning support of your ridiculous assertions, and no mention of your fallacious claims, lack of evidence, or contradictory theories. Here, we're much more fascinated by the cold hard truth- fantasies be damned.

 

[brasil]

You haven't been closely following, then. So goes the claim. But even if it's true, what does this have to do with anything ? Non sequitur. Strawman. Mostly, because once you have the one, why would you need the other ? Since everybody agrees that the towers would be expected to collapsed with just the plane crashes and subsequent fires, and considering the supposed agenda, why would they ? Because you're wrong. You think that's "perfectly" valid ? How about ignoring reality altogether and say aliens did it? You don't care if your theory is stupid and implausible ? That's an outright lie.

Belz, just to illustrate how utterly useless and irrelevant your reply is to what I actually wrote (other than to attempt to bury my post - the reigning diversionary tactic here), adding absolutely nothing to this polite discussion, I took your one-liners and formed them into a paragraph. Do you know how to write english in paragraph form, where you develop complete ideas, or are you only capable of responding to one isolated sentence at a time with your opinion and no facts of your own? It's really funny reading your reply in paragraph form. I challenge you to reply to the ideas and concepts in my post, and not 6 word strings, taken completely out of context.

 

[DGM]

I think brasil's whole post boils down to he wants so much for the USG to be at fault that nothing will ever convince him otherwise and it's pointless to try.

 

[Totovader]

hey all

going back to the topic of this thread. the question was "witnesses corroborrating rodriguez's claims".

rodriguez claimed he heard an explosion in the basement.

after reading through the testimonies from people in the basement level the following people corroborate this particular claim.

1 - Anthony Saltalamacchia B1 "we heard a massive explosion" below
2 - Felipe David "i heard the explosion”
3 – Giambanco B1 “We heard the explosion”
4 - Bobby Hall B1 “the first explosion”
5 – Jose Sanchez B4 ““It sounded like a bomb”
6 – Philip Morelli B4 “the explosion”
7 – Hurseley Lever B4 “i heard a bomb”
8 – Edward McCabe B4 “door explodes of hinges”
9 - woman beyond the door says “a bomb blew up their office”
10- Arturo Griffith car 50 freight elevator “i felt the explosion”
11- Marlene Cruz car 50 freight elevator “I heard that explosion”

There is no debate that these witnesses who reported hearing an explosion are corroborrating with william rodriguez. But the question is what CAUSED the explosion they all claimed to hear?

To be honest i am not wedded to the notion that it was caused by explosives, i do enjoy debate however and the function of this forum is to arrive at some sort of conclusion. I am pleased that i debunked totovader’s claim that the “explosion” heard and felt by these witnesses was caused by a plane impacting 90+floors above. That is simply impossible. But the fireball explanation is hands down a far more plausible scenario.

I still believe that 911 was an inside job, i just dont think that the dynamic descent of 6 floors is capable of eliminating the vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse. I have no calculations of course but should the vertical capcity of the steel core column not count for something? Why would failure of the connections cause the core to fall?

Anyways i will try present my next post on the fireball versus exposives theory. To be frank i think the former is alomost impossible to debunk. If i cannot then i cannot but like i said i am not wedded to the conviction that explosives were used.

So when you got all the replies to your previous post agreeing with your observation of "explosions"- you decided to try and stretch it (exactly as everyone predicted)?

I would like you to reconsider this post (and source your claims... if you're stealing directly from Gravy's work, it should be easy to source what he's found). It's impossible to tell what you're injecting as part of your own narrative, and what you're taking out of context unless you actually source your claims. You may not think it's necessary (at this point) but because it's easy to see where you're taking this crazy train, it's a requirement.

 

[Totovader]

I think brasil's whole post boils down to he wants so much for the USG to be at fault that nothing will ever convince him otherwise and it's pointless to try.

I concur. I asked him back in post #552 what it would take, and he completely ignored me.

I have a sneaking suspicion he won't be able to answer the question- but I'm more afraid that the topic is veering too far off course, and mod action is imminent.

 

[Totovader]

Your bias is so one-sided as to be almost comical. Before you've even had time to read my post (other than the last line) you say it's off-topic, while ignoring a blatantly off-topic post by beachnut that is filled with personal attacks against thewholesoul. LOL. My post IS on-topic because:

A) it comments on the factors at play when witnesses have potentially incriminating, corroborating evidence and uses a real-world example about what can happen to witnesses with information embarrassing to the government.

B) it presents a plausible theory for bombs in the basement to explain the witness testimonies of Pecoraro, Rodriguez, Morelli, and others.

C) i have been challenged repeatedly to provide an alternative theory that would explain a reason for planting bombs in the basement, and i've done that.

Whoever it was that predicted suicide-by-mod should hurry up and submit their predictions for the Million Dollar Challenge.

 

[Lurker]

Brasil:

Couple of points. First off, it is possible that bombs went off in the basement. The problem is, there is little to no evidence to support that which is why I am skeptical that bombs existed down there. A fireball has evidence for it (burns, kerosene aroma...) so I go with that. I guess you could split the two by saying the terrorists (or others) planted fuel bombs in the basement.

Second, your anecdote about the Coast Guard is interesting. You have established that intimidation has been used in the past to keep things quiet. I personally was not doubting that. Some differences between your anecdoate and a govt WTC CT is that only one guy was intimidated while a WTC CT would require many more witnesses and so on. Further, the Coast Guard guy was intimidated directly by his employers who will have more leverage against him. US citizens outside the govt would not have similar leverage against them.

I guess you can keep concocting scenarios and we can discuss opinions on them for quite some time. Isn't that the very essence of a standard Conspiracy Theorist? They concoct scenarios whether evidence exists to support them or not. I'll admit that 911 CTers seem to have some anomalies in the data which they construe as evidence, but the world is a complex place and chaotic events occur which defy simple explanations. Anomalies will exist all over the place if you look hard enough to find them. As our discussion about equations revealed, equations are idealized systems and reality is prone to be a tad different.

 

[thewholesoul]

nobody knows what type of explosives, if any, were used.

The basement explosions are not "demolitions." The structural damage was light compared to the interior damage. This is part of the reason why we know it was a fuel deflagration, and not TNT.

The military does indeed use FAE's in certain applications.

Normal demolition does not use fuel explosives because they try to expend as little energy as possible. There's no advantage at all for them in using a higher energy-density approach. None.

how do you know from the testimony that the structural damage was light? was there a structural engineer checking the core structure on B3 level that morning?

why are you assuming TNT was the explosive of choice? obviously liquid explosives is an alternative and viable possibility and your own comments support liquid explosives as a plausible alternative.

if indeed it was demolition job, it was by no means a "normal" demolition job.

according to your own statment below a low amount of liquid explosives would be sufficient to cut through steel. and the impact of a plane with jet fuel would be the perfect deception as it would account for the smell of kerosene - or rather what they beleived was the smell of kerosene.

low explosives can too cut through steel, etc. Even hear of a pipe bomb?

as brasil argued all that would be required is enough to weaken the core structure.

 

[thewholesoul]

So when you got all the replies to your previous post agreeing with your observation of "explosions"- you decided to try and stretch it (exactly as everyone predicted)?

I would like you to reconsider this post (and source your claims... if you're stealing directly from Gravy's work, it should be easy to source what he's found). It's impossible to tell what you're injecting as part of your own narrative, and what you're taking out of context unless you actually source your claims. You may not think it's necessary (at this point) but because it's easy to see where you're taking this crazy train, it's a requirement.

yep all quotes are from grravy's paper - apologise i should have stated my source.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

why are you assuming TNT was the explosive of choice? obviously liquid explosives is an alternative and viable possibility and your own comments support liquid explosives as a plausible alternative.

if indeed it was demolition job, it was by no means a "normal" demolition job.

This begs the question of why many truthers keeps saying the collapse exhibited all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition, but I understand that's not an argument that you specifically advance here. I merely point this out for bystanders to understand that the "obvious controlled demolitions" arguments are without merit, even by conspiracy theory standards.

according to your own statment below a low amount of liquid explosives would be sufficient to cut through steel. and the impact of a plane with jet fuel would be the perfect deception as it would account for the smell of kerosene - or rather what they beleived was the smell of kerosene.

The obvious question that results from that thesis is how liquid explosives would have been emplaced to guarantee detonation against the core structures they're supposed to limit themselves to.

as brasil argued all that would be required is enough to weaken the core structure.

But that thesis fails, given that the core was one of the last structures to collapse. If explosives were used with the intent of weakening the core structure, the explosives were insufficient.

Granted, that in and of itself does not rule out explosives, but at that point you have to ask yourself how they would have had the expertise to install such explosives, get them to only detonate against the core structure, and still fail to collapse the core.

If one accepts that the core was still standing yet still argue that explosives were there, then one must also accept that explosives ended up contributing nothing to the collapse, since they failed to take down the core.

Again, this is another reason why the "minimum demolitions required" thesis fails.

 

[SDC]

I'm putting on my academic historian hat. Reviewing the wealth of evidence about 9/11, specifically discussing the towers, I have to say that most of the personal testimonies, while of great interest, really tell us very little that is useful about the causes and course of the event. Rather, what we see is how people respond to a disastrous event, which created near-chaotic conditions. It is pointless to argue what exactly Rodriguez or anyone else "heard" or "experienced."

The eye is a liar, as is the ear, in a situation such as this. Rely on the physical evidence -- by which I mean the rubble and ruins. Rely on the eyewitnesses who had a little time and scope to reflect or document -- such as those who watched, or some professional cameramen/ videographers who were on site or nearby. Rely on the engineers/ scientists who have the knowledge and experience to interpret the physical event.

There is no disrespect in saying that someone, like Rodriguez or others, caught in a situation like this is not a reliable witness. The eye lies; the ear lies; the time sense becomes wildly distorted.

Edit: I should have said: the most important thing is to rely on the engineers/ scientists etc. Absolutely the most.

 

[Totovader]

I'm putting on my academic historian hat. Reviewing the wealth of evidence about 9/11, specifically discussing the towers, I have to say that most of the personal testimonies, while of great interest, really tell us very little that is useful about the causes and course of the event. Rather, what we see is how people respond to a disastrous event, which created near-chaotic conditions. It is pointless to argue what exactly Rodriguez or anyone else "heard" or "experienced."

The eye is a liar, as is the ear, in a situation such as this. Rely on the physical evidence -- by which I mean the rubble and ruins. Rely on the eyewitnesses who had a little time and scope to reflect or document -- such as those who watched, or some professional cameramen/ videographers who were on site or nearby. Rely on the engineers/ scientists who have the knowledge and experience to interpret the physical event.

There is no disrespect in saying that someone, like Rodriguez or others, caught in a situation like this is not a reliable witness. The eye lies; the ear lies; the time sense becomes wildly distorted.

Edit: I should have said: the most important thing is to rely on the engineers/ scientists etc. Absolutely the most.

A small point of contention- because it's a pet peeve of mine. The eyes and ears are not the liar, it's the bias and poor recall ability of the observer. Eyes and ears do not have the consciousness required for lying.