Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Lurker]

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.

All right. I am sure I speak for many here when I say that I am interested in hearing what you come up with.

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.

Well, you have yet to provide a single person that was harmed by a high powered explosion, right? I mean, wasn't it established that one of the hallmarks of said explosion would be ear problems? Have you found any sort of reports from witnesses?

 

[funk de fino]

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.

It has a low probability of occuring unless two planes are rammed into them at very high speed, full of fuel, which damages the building and sets it on fire. It was not impossible to place explosives in the building it is just there is zero evidence to even give it a miniscule probability

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

Are you trying to claim this core shifted sideways? Without the rest of the building to support it should fall down.

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?

It fell down

 

[Belz...]

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.

Of course it is. If installing them is impossible under any reasonable scenario, then they could not have been planted.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of their existence, and you have a problem.

the progressive global collapse of the world trade centre buildings 1, 2 and 7 has also a low probability of occuring,

Not if you crash two 767s into the two former and have them come crashing down on the latter.

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?

Er... falling down with gravity and smashing everything in their path ?

 

[Totovader]

(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.

This is absolutely absurd. You're whining about having your points reduced to their specific statements and then having those statements refuted. This is pathetic.

I cannot possibly be taking your comments out of context, and under no definition of the term is it quote mining or a strawman to break up your argument into it's specific claims, and then respond to those.

What's the alternative? To do what you did and only pick one sentence- and then ignore the rest? If that's the way you debate, it's not wonder you've settled on a position you cannot defend.

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.

That would be believable if you hadn't completely ignored every one of my rebuttals and spent so much of your energy whining about everyone else pointing out that you're wrong.

You're trying very desperately to completely dodge the issues by whining about having them dissected. Are you listening to yourself? Are you proud of this behavior?

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.

On the one hand you'll complain that I'm refuting your arguments point-by-point, but then on the other when I try and point out that you're ideas themselves are flawed, you'll claim you were just asking questions and made no claims.

This is your cognitive dissonance: when people refute your arguments point-by-point, you whine because you can't dispute them. When people refute your arguments in general, you whine because you can't face the evidence. When people point out that your arguments are pathetic, lazy, and incomprehensible- you whine that you're being attacked.

That statement you posted above shows just how immature and unprepared you are to defend your own position.

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.

Says the coward who has shifted his claims so many times that he eventually had to say "I don't believe in anything"???

That's rich.

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.

That was completely ridiculous. I'm getting so sick of your useless boasting that I'm just have to start ignoring them. Nothing in your arguments can be compared to music. You are not (or should not) be considering it as a performance- it's supposed to be an argument, therefore the building blocks of that argument are prone to error... a lot of errors in your case.

Your analogy once again proves that you can't even grasp your own position. You're the guitar player (apparently a master at that, too) but instead of going by the notes on the page, you just hit the strings, wildly. You fail at the competition because you can't even recognize the notes on the page and instead want to play by your own rules- no rhythm, no tone, no recognizable theme. That's your idiocy, here- and when the judges stop you 5 minutes in, you complain that they haven't heard the whole piece yet.

"No need to," they say "you've already failed."

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."

Since I have been offering a complete point-by-point refutation of every single one of your claims, you aren't even using this analogy as an analogy- you're just using it in a pathetic attempt to say "I'm right and you're wrong, oh and by the way I'm an expert in music, too"

Why you think this helps your case is beyond me- it just makes you look even more desperate that you can't respond to the claims within your assertions.

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.

... says the guitar hero...

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?

Who needs book when we have walking experts, such as yourself? Who needs logic when we can just think of everything as a music piece which is untouchable and immune from criticism? Who needs communication itself, if all you're going to do is ignore everything wrong with your claims?

Judging by your arguments, you're reading the wrong books.

 

[Totovader]

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.

Since I quoted your entire argument, in succession, this whining has no merit. You are again using this as a scapegoat so that you don't have to respond to the rebuttal.

 

[DavidJames]

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.

(emphasis above is mine) Another common trait of the CTists. They fashion themselves as uniquely gifted with the ability to see "the big picture". No need to dilly dally with the details. The US government is evil, they did it. This is very convenient of course, since they don't possess any ability to work through those natty details. Those details which when added up, may result in a completely different picture. Think of a jigsaw puzzle. The CTists claim to see the picture on the front of the box. They then throw out a 1000 pieces on a table, but they won't let anyone look at the individual pieces, much less attempt to put them together

In their mind breaking down the "big picture" into specific details is being "quote-mined".

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

That is somewhat of a sophistic argument. Arguing a confluence of two low probability acts does not increase the probability of either. But that's irrelevent. My point wasn't in arguing relative probabilities. It was to highlight the extreme requirements a demolitions hypothesis imposes. It requires an amazing coordination of opportunity, expertise, and knowledge, and leaves no room for random events, such as the precise location of the jet impacts.

Anyone experienced with the history of science knows why Occam's Razor is an important evaluation tool: Because hypotheses with extreme requirements often turn out to be wrong. And the demolitions hypothesis has extreme requirements of opportunity, knowledge, and event coordination to satisfy.

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

That supports my argument. The core, whether in part or in total, was one of the last structures to fall. If the argument was that explosives were needed to weaken the core, and the core collapsed after the rest of the structure, then the natural conclusion is that explosives contributed nothing to the collapse.

Now, if the argument is that explosives were installed not to weaken the core, but to sever supports between it and the rest of the structure, at that point my argument is invalidated. However, that suddenly increases the amount of explosives necessary, right? And imposes an even bigger burden of opportunity and coordination?

Anyway, the point is that claiming explosives were there to weaken the core fail in the light of the core being the last structure to fall.

By the way, what is the significance of the fact that the core structure visible in the videos was "adjacent" to the position it should have been? Did it move? If so, is the argument that the demolitions caused it to move to a position adjacent to the position it should have been in?

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?

No, no, you're missing my point. I was playing off your statement "if indeed it was demolition job, it was by no means a "normal" demolition job". My point was that many conspiracy fantasists keep on insisting that the collapse exhibited all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition. Again, I know that you weren't making that argument in your post, so I wasn't accusing you of saying this, but many, many others do, even nowadays. Anyway, my statement was one of amused irony, that if the demolition job was "by no means a normal" one, then other fantasists must be wrong when they assert "obvious controlled demolition". Because an event cannot be a standard and obvious one at the same time that it is not a "normal" one; those are contradictory assertions.

You see what I'm saying? I was taking the opportunity presented by your statement to make a point (and a sort of subtle joke) criticising remarks made by other truthers claiming that the WTC collapses are "obvious" CDs, or showed all the "hallmarks" of a standard CD.

 

[Totovader]

The "larger ideas" of brasil

Here's brasil's "larger ideas": by employing a rather pathetic and transparent tactic of incessant whining, brasil is able to scapegoat the entire argument by attacking everything from the medium, to the moderators, to the posters, to the method of debunking, to the facts themselves. To brasil it's incredibly inconvenient that he's an expert in everything, but a fool to his own claims.

By employing this tactic, he's successfully (I use the term lightly) ignored the following glaring inconsistencies in his claims: the burden of proof fallacies; the rebuttal to the video proving his "bombs in the basement" claim was erroneous (which had to be posted 3 times for him to stop ignoring it); and when it's not good enough that his posts are pointed out as wrong by evidence- the use of logic itself becomes a scapegoat; but then we cannot forget that he completely skirted around the contradiction he created by pointing out that the picture from Tower 2 was not Tower 1- but that it clearly showed no signs of "bombs in the basement"; and will continually ignore the fallacies in his "bombs in the basement" claim; but after he was beaten so badly by the evidence, he agreed to go do some research- unsuprisingly he came back with nothing.

These posts are just a small sample of the recent rebuttals that brasil has never responded to, and these are just the observations I have made- there are many more posts that he has entirely ignored from others as well. This is a tactic that I pointed out early on in the thread, and subsequently bumped to try and get him back on topic- to no avail. It's not just an appeal to pity, either- but several different fallacious arguments that brasil has tried to employ at various times and in various degrees in a desperate attempt to dodge the issues. The fallacious nature of his arguments as a whole is far too numerous to list out, but is clearly documented- and entirely unchallenged by brasil himself- throughout this entire thread.

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

Yet none of that evidence supports any wild assertions you have been making.

Funny, so after 6 years of research you concluded that the impact of the plane caused the explosion heard by the witnesses? nice work. or have you now decided to adopt mackey's far more plausible argument that it was a fireball?

 

[Belz...]

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.

 

[Totovader]

Funny, so after 6 years of research you concluded that the impact of the plane caused the explosion heard by the witnesses? nice work. or have you now decided to adopt mackey's far more plausible argument that it was a fireball?

I refuse to adopt the argument that it was "bombs in the basement" until I see some credible, irrefutable, and specific evidence supporting that theory.

You seem to think you can win support for your argument by pitting us "debunkers" against each other so that you can avoid the gaping abyss that is your evidence. Now all the sudden it's you and R. Mackey versus me?

 

[thewholesoul]

If installing them is impossible under any reasonable scenario, then they could not have been planted.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of their existence, and you have a problem.

installing them is not impossible it is admittedly improbable but once you discover the difference between these two terms you will understand the point i was making.

the most important factor is access - could anyone possibly have access to the core structure within the basement. it would not exactly be mission impossible to plant 28kg of liquid explosives if one had access to the core area in the basement.

if you had read my post i specifically refered to liquid explosives. this would explain your "no evidecne of their existence" problem.

i said the progressive global collapse of tower 1, 2, and 7 had a low probability of occuring, you said

Not if you crash two 767s into the two former and have them come crashing down on the latter.

i am surprised it needs to be mentioned but tower 7 was not hit by a plane. FEMA said in a 2002 report quote "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." and of course their report did not include the explosives possibility.

now as for 1 and 2 - name one other steel frame building that displayed a progressive global collapse - and no you cannot use the plane impact as the causal explanation - NIST descibes anotehr causal explanation other than the planes. The planes were responsible according to NIST for the initial collapse – not – the progressive global collapse.

i said name the characteristics of a natural gravity collapse that were exhibted by the fall of the twin towers, you said

Er... falling down with gravity and smashing everything in their path ?

the collapse looked more like an explosion than a natural collapse.

in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below. and i know you cannot provide ONE EXAMPLE when, aside from the twin towers, that this has occured in nature by gravity alone. because it is impossible. 1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.

in nature buildings collapse asymmetrically following the path of least resistance not - never - down the path of greatest resistence.

when a building collapses naturally they do not create mushroom clouds, blast waves etc etc...if you disagree with me you should take it up with the experts at ae911truth.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Wow, I'm stundied

 

[thewholesoul]

You seem to think you can win support for your argument by pitting us "debunkers" against each other so that you can avoid the gaping abyss that is your evidence. Now all the sudden it's you and R. Mackey versus me?

hahahahha, look i wasnt the one spouting that the causal explanation behind the explosion in the basement was caused by a plane impacting 90+floor above - that was all you my firend. and given that you have still not accepted that you were wrong on that i am forced to conclude that you still support this view eventhough it is physically impossible and all evidence and testimony points to an explosion either caused by a fireball or liquid explosives.

i like mackey's style of argument as he provides a "robust" presentation in defence of his position that it was a fireball as opposed to your one liner counterpunching tactic. like i said i am not wedded to the claim that the explosions were caused by explosives - i just like debate and in this forum i can do so. but i will later try to debate mackey's fireball theory - the question is what type of explosives were used - no one knows. so perhaps they were liquid explosives? that would counter a lot of the good points mackey has made in previous postings.

 

[Totovader]

installing them is not impossible it is admittedly improbable but once you discover the difference between these two terms you will understand the point i was making.

the most important factor is access - could anyone possibly have access to the core structure within the basement. it would not exactly be mission impossible to plant 28kg of liquid explosives if one had access to the core area in the basement.

if you had read my post i specifically refered to liquid explosives. this would explain your "no evidecne of their existence" problem.

i said the progressive global collapse of tower 1, 2, and 7 had a low probability of occuring, you said



i am surprised it needs to be mentioned but tower 7 was not hit by a plane. FEMA said in a 2002 report quote "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...] the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." and of course their report did not include the explosives possibility.

now as for 1 and 2 - name one other steel frame building that displayed a progressive global collapse - and no you cannot use the plane impact as the causal explanation - NIST descibes anotehr causal explanation other than the planes. The planes were responsible according to NIST for the initial collapse – not – the progressive global collapse.

i said name the characteristics of a natural gravity collapse that were exhibted by the fall of the twin towers, you said



the collapse looked more like an explosion than a natural collapse.

in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below. and i know you cannot provide ONE EXAMPLE when, aside from the twin towers, that this has occured in nature by gravity alone. because it is impossible. 1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.

in nature buildings collapse asymmetrically following the path of least resistance not - never - down the path of greatest resistence.

when a building collapses naturally they do not create mushroom clouds, blast waves etc etc...if you disagree with me you should take it up with the experts at ae911truth.

Oh my lord, thewholesoul.

Have you even bothered to do any research? Every single one of your claims here is old, already debunked, and not even maintained by the conspiracism movement as a whole anymore...

 

[Totovader]

hahahahha, look i wasnt the one spouting that the causal explanation behind the explosion in the basement was caused by a plane impacting 90+floor above - that was all you my firend.

Um, I hate to remind you of this little embarrassing tidbit- but you claimed it was "bombs in the basement".

You sort of said that a lot.

and given that you have still not accepted that you were wrong on that i am forced to conclude that you still support this view eventhough it is physically impossible and all evidence and testimony points to an explosion either caused by a fireball or liquid explosives.

You never told me what I'm supposed to be wrong about.

i like mackey's style of argument as he provides a "robust" presentation in defence of his position that it was a fireball as opposed to your one liner counterpunching tactic. like i said i am not wedded to the claim that the explosions were caused by explosives - i just like debate and in this forum i can do so. but i will later try to debate mackey's fireball theory - the question is what type of explosives were used - no one knows. so perhaps they were liquid explosives? that would counter a lot of the good points mackey has made in previous postings.

If you have no intention of supporting your assertions- then I suggest you go the way of brasil: tuck your tail and go do some reading. If you are now going to JAQ off all over the place, you're wasting everyone's time.

There's a reason I look down on people that do that- you claimed not that long ago that the only conclusion was "bombs in the basement" and went through a series of "truths" which you tried to claim led to your conclusion. Instead of admitting fault, now you're pretending like you've just been asking questions as a past time- like it's just a stroll through the park. You're even going so far as to try and position yourself with people who have debunked your claims as if you have the ability to draw a line in the sand.

thewholesoul- Almost everyone in this forum has seen this pathetic technique done a dozen times before with the same results: you will slip away into nothing without ever having to admit a single error in your claims. Meanwhile- elsewhere you're still holding onto them confidently and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. It's fraudulent, self-deceiving, and transparent.

If you're unwilling to support your claims, do your own research, or even address the rebuttals- then what is your purpose here?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Belz...
Not if you crash two 767s into the two former and have them come crashing down on the latter.


i am surprised it needs to be mentioned but tower 7 was not hit by a plane.

That's exactly what Belz said. WTC1 and 2 are "the two former" and WTC7 is "the latter".

now as for 1 and 2 - name one other steel frame building that displayed a progressive global collapse

Kader toy factory.

in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below. and i know you cannot provide ONE EXAMPLE when, aside from the twin towers, that this has occured in nature by gravity alone. because it is impossible. 1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.

So, at last, another JAQ'er descends into outright woo. Steel framed buildings don't exist "in nature", they're highly artificial constructs. Progressive collapse is a well-known phenomenon, and the physics of the collapses of the Twin Towers is very well understood, even if the mathematics is intractable.

in nature buildings collapse asymmetrically following the path of least resistance not - never - down the path of greatest resistence.

when a building collapses naturally they do not create mushroom clouds, blast waves etc etc...if you disagree with me you should take it up with the experts at ae911truth.

Someone posted a video of a building collapsing due to a fire the other week. It fell vertically into its own footprint, producing huge amounts of dust. Funny, that. Oh, and the fallacious appeal to authority is noted, but we've already looked at what those experts have to say, and it's drivel.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

installing them is not impossible it is admittedly improbable but once you discover the difference between these two terms you will understand the point i was making.

the most important factor is access - could anyone possibly have access to the core structure within the basement. it would not exactly be mission impossible to plant 28kg of liquid explosives if one had access to the core area in the basement.

Why would they install bombs in the basement ? The building came down from the top.

if you had read my post i specifically refered to liquid explosives. this would explain your "no evidecne of their existence" problem.

Do you think that liquid explosives are installed without a casing and a detonator ?

i am surprised it needs to be mentioned but tower 7 was not hit by a plane.

What _I_'m surprised about is that you didn't understand when I said this: "Not if you crash two 767s into the two former and have them come crashing down on the latter."

The planes were responsible according to NIST for the initial collapse – not – the progressive global collapse.

Obviously. Gravity is responsible for that.

the collapse looked more like an explosion than a natural collapse.

That's because you know next to nothing about physics.

in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below.

Let me get this straight. You think that 30+ floors worth of mass CANNOT break through 75+ successive floors ? What do you think these things are made of, anyway ?

and i know you cannot provide ONE EXAMPLE when, aside from the twin towers, that this has occured in nature by gravity alone. because it is impossible.

No, because skyscrapers don't collapse unless you make them collapse. It's a non sequitur to conclude that it's impossible because it never happened.

1/5 of the same object by gravity alone does not "smash everything in its path" if that everything weighs 4 times heavier and poses vertical support columns.

I'm sorry, since when does the weight of what you're crashing into make it impossible ?

Are you saying that hurricanes can't fling vinyl discs through wood ?

in nature buildings collapse asymmetrically following the path of least resistance not - never - down the path of greatest resistence.

There are no buildings in nature.

when a building collapses naturally they do not create mushroom clouds, blast waves etc etc...

Indeed. And there was none of that at the WTC on 9/11. Or do you have evidence that there was ?

 

[Belz...]

One thing that Truthers fail to appreciate is that skyscrapers are built to prevent collapse initiation. It's a given that, once collapse begins, there's precious little to stop it from coming down entirely. Besides, I would think it would be far more important to make collapse initiation as unlikely as possible than to stop it once it starts.

 

[brasil]

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.

My point is to show that only once in a long while do we ever hear about these stories, and the majority of the time the intimidation works. I think the Coast Guard incident is an exception. Sibel Edmonds is an example of a witness/whistleblower case where it has not worked. She was an FBI translator before 9-11 who claims to have proof that the government shut down multiple investigations into terrorism and that the FBI translation office was compromised by foreign spies. She has said her story implicates sitting and former congressman or senators (or both), and reaches into the top levels of government. She has tried every legal avenue to get to tell her story but the threats and gag orders have so far prevented her from talking. She offered all of the major television networks an exclusive interview on the condition that they air it unedited, knowing she will probably be escorted off the set by federal agents. All have refused. You have to wonder what is going on in this situation. What do the networks have to lose by airing what could be the story of the decade? And why is it that her phone is ringing off the hook with invitations from foreign stations? She has refused, obviously. I can't think of a better example to illustrate just how effective intimidation is in cover-ups.

How exactly does Sibel Edmonds fit into the debunker worldview? Seems she has no place whatsoever in it. Does not compute....

EXCLUSIVE: Daniel Ellsberg Says Sibel Edmonds Case 'Far More Explosive Than Pentagon Papers'
Gagged' FBI Whistleblower, Risking Jail, Says American Media Has Refused Her Offer to Disclose Classified Information, Including Criminal Allegations, Information Concerning 'Security of Americans'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-friedman/exclusive-daniel-ellsber_b_74022.html

There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" [Ellsberg] told us.

"I have been receiving calls from the mainstream media all day," Edmonds recounted the day after we ran the story announcing that she was prepared to violate her gag-order to disclose all of the national security-related criminal allegations she has been kept from disclosing for the past five years.

"The media called from Japan and France and Belgium and Germany and Canada and from all over the world," she told The BRAD BLOG.

"But not from here?," we asked incredulously.

"I'm getting contact from all over the world, but not from here. Isn't that disgusting?," she shot back.