Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[SDC]

Mmmph. Engineers; no sense of poetry. I really mean: don't believe automatically what your eyes seem to see, or your ears seem to hear. They are struggling to interpret (in a sense!) a terrifying and chaotic situation and they naturally draw upon bias and previous experience -- which may be no help at all. And the unreliability of the time sense in a terrifying and confusing situation is also well known and documented.

It's disturbing to see WS and Br (as many before them) try to build castles of explanation on the sands of the testimonies of the immediate experiences of the victims. (Meaning the ones caught in the buildings.)

Hah! Metaphors! Next I'll trot out a simile or two.

Edit: yeah, yeah, I should say "you are struggling to interpret," not "they." Just be glad I don't put the whole thing into verse.

 

[brasil]

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.

Firstly, thank you for replying to the ideas in my post and not using the "line item dissection" method (Totovader: it's cowardly and a cop-out, seriously). On this point we simply have to agree to disagree until more evidence is presented, better computer models are made, or some other piece of information comes our way. I know all of the arguments which try to discredit the basement witnesses' use of the word "explosions" but those arguments are not enough to prove anything either way. I am still researching and sourcing my theory that could show that a bomb in the basement was more likely to cause some of the damage and injuries in the basement than jet fuel alone. In other words, that Occam's Razor would apply and jet fuel would be a much more complex and implausible explanation. It's taking time, and believe me, I'm reading FEMA, NIST, MSM sources, even.. gasp... Gravy's opinions on the matter.

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'm sure it would not be hard for the Bush administration to intimidate a very large number of people, and I was not referring to "private citizens" but rather people who were USG employees leading up to and just after 9-11. I don't think we should underestimate the power of intimidating just a few key people as "examples" as a way of making the rest think twice. A very public example is Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator I have mentioned. She has been called "the most gagged person in U.S. history." It is not a stretch to think she's had a gun to her head either, if enough is at stake. I have never suggested that the witnesses this thread addresses are getting visits from men in black and being hushed, although I'm sure that has happened before. It's people inside the government who would be in a position to know things.

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.

It baffles me that any side can lay claim to "not being a conspiracy theorist." The official story itself is unproven speculation, nothing more than a theory. Unless a lot more evidence is made public, it will never be more than that. This just seems so obvious as to be axiomatic, but of course it isn't due to politics. Everyone knows, deep down, that labeling someone a "CT" is no different a psychological tactic than the overuse of the label "anti-semite." We're supposed to simply stop thinking about anything labeled with the scarlet "CT." This is just not intelligent.

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.

[/QUOTE]

Just in case anyone missed it, I will say it again: since joining this forum and reading a lot of sources on the collapses of the towers which I found through "debunking" sites, I have changed my opinion. I used to think it was absurd that planes could have been the cause. I now think it's more likely than not that the planes could have been solely responsible for top-down, gravity-propelled failure. Sometimes "common sense" turns out not to be the right answer.

With that said, I believe my theory about bombs in the basements and the terrorists' reasons for using them (in my long post) is perfectly reasonable and valid, and worthy of consideration. If NIST, FEMA, Gravy, R.Mackey, and everyone else on these boards is allowed to have a theory, then so am I. I still have not heard anyone put forth a good reason why my theory does not fit with the laws of physics, what we know about the previous WTC attack, the capabilities of the terrorists, the witness accounts, and the damage.

 

[brasil]

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.

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.

Then why don't we remove all of the EMT, firemen, and police testimony from the debate? In my brief examination of Gravy's writing I have seen an awful lot of selective use of witness accounts to bolster the point. By your reasoning, all of this is irrelevant and should not be considered. I don't think anyone can say with certainty that our basement witnesses are any less adept at handling themselves during a disaster than anyone else. Some of them were there for the '93 attack. Some may be war or law enforcement veterans (I don't know). Speaking for myself, I've been in a couple of very sketchy situations and I stayed very calm and collected while others completely lost their composure. If we're ruling out using witnesses, then we rule ALL of them out, and we close this thread.

What do I really think? Ignoring witness testimony makes no sense at all and goes against the most basic methodology of conducting criminal investigations. To suggest otherwise is to live in fantasy.

 

[DavidJames]

Just in case anyone missed it, I will say it again: since joining this forum and reading a lot of sources on the collapses of the towers which I found through "debunking" sites, I have changed my opinion. I used to think it was absurd that planes could have been the cause. I now think it's more likely than not that the planes could have been solely responsible for top-down, gravity-propelled failure.

This is a rare, but not unheard of CT tactic. I've seen it here a couple of times.

1. The CTists believes, ultimately, that the event was a conspiracy
2. The CTists presents directly or indirectly a particular belief
3. When presented with contradictory evidence, they back off that specific belief and return to #1.

It's rare because it's rare to see a CTists change their beliefs at all.

Sometimes "common sense" turns out not to be the right answer.

This is due to your inflated confidence of your own "common sense". You lack the relevant education, knowledge and experience but are to stubborn (or arrogant) to admit it. It's encouraging that you are able learn and change your mind (as you admit above).

With that said, I believe my theory about bombs in the basements and the terrorists' reasons for using them (in my long post) is perfectly reasonable and valid, and worthy of consideration. If NIST, FEMA, Gravy, R.Mackey, and everyone else on these boards is allowed to have a theory, then so am I.

NIST, FEMA are stocked with experts in multiple disciplines, experts because of their education and experience. Mackey is a trained and working scientist and Gravy has done an enormous amount of research. I don't mean to be cruel, but face it, you don't measure up to them. But you have shown that you can learn.

A phrase that you may find helpful is "the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know". The biggest lesson you should have learned from this is to realize your limitations and not leap from one CT to the next. Take a step back and recognize you're not as smart as you thought you were. That one admission shows you are much smarter then pretty much every other CTists out there.

I'm not suggesting you buy into anything, NIST, 9/11 commission, etc. without doing your own research. What I'm suggesting is you hold off on the assumption they are wrong. Don't assume anything without doing honest research.

Good luck.

 

[T.A.M.]

If it can be scientifically proven that I can crush a can with my fist, and then a demonstration confirms it, is it necessary to consider whether or not the can was weakened with microscopic holes at the base, especially if the can is examined after the fact, and no microscopic holes are found?

The Towers fell after being struck by planes, and fires raged (Demostration). Bazant, Greening, NIST, FEMA, MIT, have all provided scientific papers to show that this was scientifically possible, and most likely. In addition, no physical evidence has been found to corroborate use of explosives.

Get the drift?

TAM

 

[Totovader]

Firstly, thank you for replying to the ideas in my post and not using the "line item dissection" method (Totovader: it's cowardly and a cop-out, seriously).

Seriously?

Explain how a patient and concise point-by-point refutation of every single claim you have made is "cowardly" or even a "cop-out".

You're getting pathetic, here, brasil. You're trying to excuse your utter lack of a rebuttal by somehow claiming it would be cowardly and a cop-out if you were to respond...

A new low. I am absolutely amazed.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Seriously?

Explain how a patient and concise point-by-point refutation of every single claim you have made is "cowardly" or even a "cop-out".

Didn't you know? Making an effort to address each point individually is for... cats. Wholesale dismissal of an opponent's post makes you manly.

 

[brasil]

Seriously?

Explain how a patient and concise point-by-point refutation of every single claim you have made is "cowardly" or even a "cop-out".

You're getting pathetic, here, brasil. You're trying to excuse your utter lack of a rebuttal by somehow claiming it would be cowardly and a cop-out if you were to respond...

A new low. I am absolutely amazed.

(Note: my post is on-topic because I'm replying to the thread-starter about the ground rules for debate in his own thread)

It's not a "concise point-by-point refutation." Not even close. It's reducing my larger ideas to one-liners that you have "quote-mined" because they appear as easy fodder for critique when taken out of context. I would argue that by ignoring my actual ideas, you mold mine (and everyone's) posts with whom you disagree with into convenient little strawmen.

Not once have I seen any evidence that you have any comprehension of the larger ideas I'm talking about, and are able to respond in full paragraphs with your own ideas. It's as if you're autistic and can only see things granularly and you can't deal in concepts larger than one sentence, or even reply with any sort of counter-theory of your own. I think you're chicken and wouldn't dare put a "theory" out there for fear it would get ripped apart on the same technicalities you apply to everyone else.

I mentioned a few pages back that I'm a vocalist, and I'm also a musician on a couple of instruments. The musical analogy of what you do would be as follows:

Two guitarists perform one after another, and the first plays a classical piece by bach in a completely dry and technical manner, hitting all of the notes in perfect rhythm and time as they were written on the page, but with absolutely no feeling or dynamics. The audience is completely uninspired. The second guitarist puts the guitar on his lap and taps and hits the soundboard and the strings with a technique no one has ever seen before that breaks every technical rule and gets a 5 minute standing ovation.

You're the guy in the back who gave up the guitar in frustration after two weeks, and who says "bah humbug, his fretboard positions were atrocious, he didn't use alternate picking, he didn't resolve to the tonic, he slapped his instrument for godsakes, his harmonization broke every rule of classical theory, and his arrangement is unclassifiable."

You think it's "cute" to rehearse your knowledge of logic and fallacies because it avoids you having to submit even one idea of your own. I've got a great book recommendation for you:

GODEL ESCHER BACH: AN ETERNAL GOLDEN BRAID
http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Escher-...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198025748&sr=1-1

No one who communicates the way you do could possibly have read that book. Who needs robots when we have you?

 

[brasil]

This is a rare, but not unheard of CT tactic. I've seen it here a couple of times.

1. The CTists believes, ultimately, that the event was a conspiracy

If 9-11 wasn't, by definition, a criminal conspiracy, then how about you tell me what you think it was. Just by making that statement, you reveal your extreme prejudice.

 

[brasil]

Totovader: a walking Strawman tutorial

The following illustrates perfectly the point I'm making about you completely ignoring what I'm saying and molding it into your own strawman. Below you have quoted only part of a longer statement I was making, and then you accuse me of asserting that this "proves the gov't was completely involved in carrying out the murder of 3000 people." Excuse me? I said no such thing, and actually said the opposite, but you conveniently left that part out to misrepresent my statement and try to make me look bad.

The rest of the paragraph, which you neglected to quote was was "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. 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."

You're accusing me of accusing the government of murdering 3000 people on account of mis-quoting the part where I explicitly state that I'm not making that connection. If you think your so-called "friends" on this board can't see through your transparent games, you're sadly mistaken. This is the last time I ever reply to you. Have a nice life.

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.

 

[DavidJames]

If 9-11 wasn't, by definition, a criminal conspiracy, then how about you tell me what you think it was. Just by making that statement, you reveal your extreme prejudice.

Please don't play semantic games, pal. You knew exactly what I meant. Semantic games, another ploy by your kind.

Grow up.

As for extreme prejudice. I am extremely prejudiced against the combination of arrogance and ignorance you guys display. I am extremely prejudiced against the their disingenuous tactics and I am extremely prejudiced against the feigned outrage at perceived insults directed at themselves, yet have no qualms about accusing people of mass murder without due process. And if you get insulted at the last point, please refer back to the second one.

 

[funk de fino]

I'm sure it would not be hard for the Bush administration to intimidate a very large number of people, and I was not referring to "private citizens" but rather people who were USG employees leading up to and just after 9-11. I don't think we should underestimate the power of intimidating just a few key people as "examples" as a way of making the rest think twice. A very public example is Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator I have mentioned. She has been called "the most gagged person in U.S. history." It is not a stretch to think she's had a gun to her head either, if enough is at stake. I have never suggested that the witnesses this thread addresses are getting visits from men in black and being hushed, although I'm sure that has happened before. It's people inside the government who would be in a position to know things.

I just wanted to pint out to you the ridiculousness of this line of argument. This one guy who was threatened because he was a potential whistleblower still managed to get his story out there so well that you and me and everybody else can read about it and the whistle is well and truly blown.

The initimidation quite blatantly failed.

Why has it not failed at any point in the last 6 years from anyone who may have been involved or threatened or heard of someone else who had been threatened over 911? You do see the failure of this argument and how it actually stacks against your theory?

You're treading very closely to the pathetic compartmentalist argument of the woo people here.

 

[funk de fino]

If 9-11 wasn't, by definition, a criminal conspiracy, then how about you tell me what you think it was. Just by making that statement, you reveal your extreme prejudice.

911 was a criminal terrorist act IMO

Prior to 911 there was a conspiracy to commit said act by 19 hijackers and associates

Later, a conspiracy theory evolved around 911 fed by liars and taken onboard and believed by stupid and/or uninformed people. Some people eventually looked at the evidence and changed their minds. Some people continued to be stupid. Some people turned into bigger liars regarding the theories. Some people went completly nuts and made up even stupider theories.

The vast majority of people are ignorant to the fact there are actually liars and stupid people who push these theories. The stupid people and the liars do not like this and try to claim different because they think they are actually the clever people.

 

[SDC]

Speaking for myself, I've been in a couple of very sketchy situations and I stayed very calm and collected while others completely lost their composure.

Cut by me to one sentence.

This speaks to his credibility, or lack thereof. I've tried to suggest that he not brag, because his credibility drops like a paralyzed pigeon when he does so.

But here we see that the man is not only a genius, and a devil with the ladies, and a master-of-many-arts (remember the fashion photography?), but he is a hero. Sorry, I meant to say Hero.

The sentence I have quoted above is simple foolishness. He is a judge of nothing.

I vote we just declare him, well, Lord A'mighty.

Now he is going to rage that he has been insulted, by the way.

 

[funk de fino]

Speaking for myself, I've been in a couple of very sketchy situations and I stayed very calm and collected while others completely lost their composure.

Someone lose the pencil sharpener?

 

[Belz...]

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.

So, I take it you've decided to not adress my points and instead cover your ears and shut your eyes and chant "la la la la la!" ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

I hope we're not talking about thermite, as you probably know it's not an explosive.

 

[twinstead]

Cut by me to one sentence.

This speaks to his credibility, or lack thereof. I've tried to suggest that he not brag, because his credibility drops like a paralyzed pigeon when he does so.

But here we see that the man is not only a genius, and a devil with the ladies, and a master-of-many-arts (remember the fashion photography?), but he is a hero. Sorry, I meant to say Hero.

I for one welcome our Hero overlords...

 

[Belz...]

Firstly, thank you for replying to the ideas in my post and not using the "line item dissection" method (Totovader: it's cowardly and a cop-out, seriously).

Actually, it's a good way to pick apart an argument for all it stands and answer each point, individually, noting what's good and what's bad about it.

Of course, if that's too complicated for you, I'm sure we can oblige.

On this point we simply have to agree to disagree until more evidence is presented, better computer models are made, or some other piece of information comes our way.

I don't think there's a need to. We have plenty of evidence, already.

I know all of the arguments which try to discredit the basement witnesses' use of the word "explosions" but those arguments are not enough to prove anything either way. I am still researching and sourcing my theory that could show that a bomb in the basement was more likely to cause some of the damage and injuries in the basement than jet fuel alone. In other words, that Occam's Razor would apply and jet fuel would be a much more complex and implausible explanation.

Why would you want to do that ? Wouldn't you rather form a conclusion based on the evidence then find evidence to support your conclusion ?

I'm sure it would not be hard for the Bush administration to intimidate a very large number of people, and I was not referring to "private citizens" but rather people who were USG employees leading up to and just after 9-11.

You mean, all of them ? Thousands of them ? How would you go around to doing that ? And while you're at it, how do you ENSURE that not a single one of them will slip ?

It baffles me that any side can lay claim to "not being a conspiracy theorist." The official story itself is unproven speculation, nothing more than a theory.

Whatever you need to keep you asleep at night. Of course, if you keep ignoring all the evidence we DO have, you can safely see this "official story" as speculation.

Nitpick: you do know that it is not the "official" story, right ?

Unless a lot more evidence is made public, it will never be more than that. This just seems so obvious as to be axiomatic, but of course it isn't due to politics. Everyone knows, deep down, that labeling someone a "CT" is no different a psychological tactic than the overuse of the label "anti-semite." We're supposed to simply stop thinking about anything labeled with the scarlet "CT." This is just not intelligent.

Are you done whining, now ?

With that said, I believe my theory about bombs in the basements and the terrorists' reasons for using them (in my long post) is perfectly reasonable and valid, and worthy of consideration.

And this despite all the evidence ? Why would you think so ?

 

[thewholesoul]

This begs the question of why many truthers keeps saying the collapse exhibited all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition, I merely point this out for bystanders to understand that the "obvious controlled demolitions" arguments are without merit, even by conspiracy theory standards.

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.

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.

1- how were they installed and who would have the expertise to install them is not an arument against the impossibility of it having occured. all your saying is that it has a low probability of occuring. the progressive global collapse of the world trade centre buildings 1, 2 and 7 has also a low probability of occuring, but if we factored in the low probability of explosives being used then it becomes very likely that steel frame buildings would exhibit progressive global collapse.

2- you say the core was the last structure to fall. as we can see from the video only part of the core remained. the part that remained was adjacent to the position it should of been. then we see that if falls down into its own

3- if your arguing that the collapse exhibited none of the characteristics of a controlled demolition then what may i ask characteristics of a natural gravity collapse did it exhibit?