Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[thewholesoul]

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

i have only stated that explosives in the basement were a possibility among others. why dont you present my quote in context?

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

let me say it to you again then. you were WRONG to make the assertion that the causal explanation behind the explosions reported in the the testimony of numerous witnesses was NOT A PLANE IMPACTING THE BUILDING.

If you are now going to JAQ off all over the place, you're wasting everyone's time.

If you continue personal insults you will be reported. besides that sort of degrading behaviour is more commonly practised by un-married men. i am a married man.

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.

the aim of that presentation you are reffering to "totovader officially debunked" was to prove your assertion that the explosions experienced in the basement was caused by the impact of a plane was impossible. i did that.

now if your not intellectually honest enough to admit when your wrong, even when i can post several occassions when you with your own words that the explosion felt by morelli was caused by the impact of a plane well thats your problem. and it doesnt reflect favourably on your intellect.

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.

what are you talking about - i admit fault when i wrong - i have no problem with that. only you do. this is my past time - i enjoy debate. i dont take debating too seriously - i have a life outside of this forum. if there were no bombs in the basement, fine - but if you think that asking questions is jaqing off well then thats your opinion. and that opinion is wrong. [/QUOTE]

 

[brasil]

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

I don't think asking "why would the terrorists" do this or that is any sort of strong argument for anything. I have already suggested that I find the top down, gravity-propelled collapse more plausible after reading a lot more material from the "other" side. However, to answer you question, I also suggested that bombs could have been put in the basement by the terrorists because they thought it would help to knock down the buildings along with crashing the planes. In '93 they attempted just bombs in the basement, and in '01 perhaps they refined their plan and added planes to the equation, never predicting ahead of time that the planes would be enough.

The only reason to even consider a theory like that is because, like it or not, we have tons of witness testimony and not fully explained damage that backs it up. All the debunkers have is what seems to be a far-fetched jet fuel theory, and a need to discredit and parse the words of these witnesses. This debate about Rodriguez et al is happening for a reason. We're not just making this stuff up.

 

[DavidJames]

...but if you think that asking questions is jaqing off well then thats your opinion. and that opinion is wrong.

JAQ stands for Just Asking Questions. Now don't you feel silly.

 

[DavidJames]

I don't think asking "why would the terrorists" do this or that is any sort of strong argument for anything....I also suggested that bombs could have been put in the basement by the terrorists because they thought it would help to knock down the buildings along with crashing the planes.

oh my.

edit to remove condescending comment. It was unnecessary as the quotes speak for themselves.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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 all due respect, sir, the 1/5ths - 4/5ths argument shows you lack understanding. I say this gently and without insult, as I genuinely do not want say anything derogatory about you or what you've written, but unfortunately it does have to be said. You do not understand what happened. The collapse as we've described it is not impossible, as you claim above. The fundamental issue is whether the segment above the impact zone on each building have enough potential energy to overcome the resistance of the segment below. Dr. Frank Greening has demonstrated that there is indeed enough energy. His work on the topic can be found here:

http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

So you cannot say "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... ", etc. Your statement is demonstrably false. The "1/5 of the structure" - in other words, the building segments above the impact zones - indeed has the potential energy required to 'collapse' and 'crush' through the segments below. The math shows it's possible. If you disagree with the scenario, you must address the energy argument put forth by Dr. Greening in the links above. That his how you show us you're correct: You demonstrate where Dr. Greening is wrong. At that point, you can claim that the 1/5ths segments were incapable of accomplishing what happened. But not before; Greening's work is in direct contradiction to your statement.

Again, I say this with much respect.

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

i believe that the vertical structure i.e. the intact 47 steel core columns, would have arrested the impact of the falling portion of the building. so we should not have seen a portion of the core remaining, the progressive global collapsed should not have occured. unless explosives were used to cut the structural support.

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?

according to mackey low explosives can cut through steel (see post #44) and only a small quantitiy of liquid explosives would be required for devastating effects. so no, a lot of liquid explosives would not have been required to cut through the steel frame core.

the opportunity and coordination to pull off such an endevour i believe is less than the opportunity and coordination to pull off the terrorist attack with 14 hijackers with box cutters.

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?

yes it seems like it was moved. how is the question. would gravity cause it to move to an adjacent position still in a vertical position? or something else? i dont know but it seems extremely weird, especially the part when it starts to disintegrate, pulverise or whatever word you wish to use, before hit hits the ground.

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.

i take your point but it doesnt appear like a normal gravity collapse either.

and i appreciated the fact that you could make a post without inserting any insults like some others around here.

 

[SDC]

WS, please provide your expert credentials to support what your statements. And also please provide the mathematical calculations which you have undertaken. (Not that I can follow them, but others can, quite well.)

I'd also say "and use your shift key, for heavens sake," but that's secondary.

 

[SDC]

Br makes this unsubstantiated assertion: "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." Concerns intimidation of witnesses, or whistle-blowers, by authorities.

Please substantiate your assertions. You are using numeric expressions: "only once," "majority of the time." Provide a list, or other calculations, of how often it happens. Examples required. Or else just admit to making useless assertions.

 

[thewholesoul]

In all due respect, sir, the 1/5ths - 4/5ths argument shows you lack understanding. You do not understand what happened. The collapse as we've described it is not impossible, as you claim above. The fundamental issue is whether the segment above the imapct zone on each building have enough potential energy to overcome the resistance of the segment below. Dr. Frank Greening has demonstrated that there is indeed enough energy. His work on the topic can be found here:

http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

.

hey thanks for the links i will check them out when i get time and of course i could refer you to other studies were they claim there was not enough potential energy.

i accept that the 5/5 fraction is extremely over simplified but i like to conceptualize complicated matters into a simpler format.

conceptually i just cant imagine it. allow me, if you would, present a simple metaphor. imagine you have a spinal columns supported to remain in a vertical upright position and you drop the head. now conceptually what you are saying is that because the head is basically heavier than the first vertical column then that will be crushed then because the head is heavier than the second vertical column then that too will be crushed...and so on and so forth until there is nothing left not even then head.

or imagine a fly lands on top of a pin, vertically upright in a pin cushion. because the fly (1g) has enough potential energy to crush the first few molecules (.001g) then this process will continue until you have no pin left.

the vertical spin or the pin are designed to support the head or the fly, as was the 90+ floors of vertical columns designed to support the upper 20 floor portion.

the resistance of the first vertical column derives from ALL the vertical columns below.

i simply find it conceptually unrealistic. even NIST claims that the connections between the core and the outer columns could not resist the collapse of the upper portion. they do not refer to the core itself which i submit should have arrested the initial collapse.

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

how you can make this argument against the possibility that explosives were implanted is surprising. let me respond in kind the extreme requirememts of a terrorist attack as grand as 911 includes an amazing coordination of opportunity, expertise, and knowledge.

i find it difficult to believe in the extreme that some muslim in a cave could have organised the 911 attacks given the reasons you have just outlined.

indeed if we are to remove the most extreme hypothesis through occam's razor then the "terrorist plotting in a cave" hypothesis over "the planting liquid explosives" should be the one to go, in my opinion.

 

[thewholesoul]

JAQ stands for Just Asking Questions. Now don't you feel silly.

yes but english is not my first language so i misinterpretated the meaning. but JAQing off does have remarkable connotations to...you know what.

but hey i was wrong.

 

[DGM]

hey thanks for the links i will check them out when i get time and of course i could refer you to other studies were they claim there was not enough potential energy.

i accept that the 5/5 fraction is extremely over simplified but i like to conceptualize complicated matters into a simpler format.

conceptually i just cant imagine it. allow me, if you would, present a simple metaphor. imagine you have a spinal columns supported to remain in a vertical upright position and you drop the head. now conceptually what you are saying is that because the head is basically heavier than the first vertical column then that will be crushed then because the head is heavier than the second vertical column then that too will be crushed...and so on and so forth until there is nothing left not even then head.

or imagine a fly lands on top of a pin, vertically upright in a pin cushion. because the fly (1g) has enough potential energy to crush the first few molecules (.001g) then this process will continue until you have no pin left.

the vertical spin or the pin are designed to support the head or the fly, as was the 90+ floors of vertical columns designed to support the upper 20 floor portion.

the resistance of the first vertical column derives from ALL the vertical columns below.

i simply find it conceptually unrealistic. even NIST claims that the connections between the core and the outer columns could not resist the collapse of the upper portion. they do not refer to the core itself which i submit should have arrested the initial collapse.

This one is easy if you watch the videos.

Did the top block destroy the whole bottom at once or did it destroy a couple of floors at a time all the way to the bottom.

If you look at it that way it's much easier to understand.

 

[DavidJames]

yes but english is not my first language so i misinterpretated the meaning. but JAQing off does have remarkable connotations to...you know what.

but hey i was wrong.

This small point, your misinterpreting an acronym, getting corrected and realizing your were wrong, should be educational for you.

You could have avoided this by, instead of jumping to a conclusions about what JAQ meant, did some research.

This lesson, if applied to most everything you post here, could have a dramatic impact on what you post.

 

[Lurker]

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.

This really demonstrates that you are quite clueless when it comes to strength of structures and basic statics. Your "analysis" is wrong simply because your whole argument is based on weight when it needs to be based on structural strength. A clue - weight has NOTHING to do with structural strength.

 

[Belz...]

So, did thewholesoul ignore me entirely ? I think so!!

 

[Belz...]

I don't think asking "why would the terrorists" do this or that is any sort of strong argument for anything.

When discussing a theory for which there is no evidence, whatsoever, motive becomes relatively important.

However, to answer you question, I also suggested that bombs could have been put in the basement by the terrorists because they thought it would help to knock down the buildings along with crashing the planes.

"Could have" is not good enough.

In '93 they attempted just bombs in the basement, and in '01 perhaps they refined their plan and added planes to the equation, never predicting ahead of time that the planes would be enough.

Perhaps. We can speculate until the end of time, Brasil. The point is, do you have evidence that they did, and if not, do you have any other reason to believe that they did ?

The only reason to even consider a theory like that is because, like it or not, we have tons of witness testimony and not fully explained damage that backs it up.

We don't have "tons" of witness testimony. In fact, there is precious little that cannot be quickly explained with reasonable assumptions of things that we witness in any similar scenario.

All the debunkers have is what seems to be a far-fetched jet fuel theory

That's right. Fire doesn't damage buildings. Ever.

and a need to discredit and parse the words of these witnesses.

Please refrain from trying to guess what happens in other people's minds.

 

[Belz...]

This small point, your misinterpreting an acronym, getting corrected and realizing your were wrong, should be educational for you.

You could have avoided this by, instead of jumping to a conclusions about what JAQ meant, did some research.

This lesson, if applied to most everything you post here, could have a dramatic impact on what you post.

I must admit that I had the same thought as thewholesoul, here.

If people stopped using ridiculous condensed versions of what they mean (acronyms), the world would be a far better place (for me).

 

[thewholesoul]

below is a point by point argument by mackey concerning the evidence in support of the hypothesis that the explosions were caused by jet fuel. does this evidence remove the possibility that the explosion heard by numerous people in the basement was caused by liquid explosives?


•Rigorous estimate of the jet fuel contained in the aircraft prior to impact

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used.

•Modeling demonstrating that a large fraction of it would remain in the structures

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Architectural diagrams identifying three large pathways from the impact zone to the basement

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements saying that jet fuel was smelled, both throughout the Towers and in the vicinity of the basement explosions

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements that fireballs were seen in the basements

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements of occupants and rescue workers that three elevators were cut by impact, and fell to the basement, leaving a clear pathway

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Burns on victims consistent with jet fuel deflagration

Is evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•Witness statements that are wholly consistent with jet fuel deflagration

They are also consistent with liquid explosives were used

•Calculations demonstrating the energy of such a deflagration is easily consistent with the level of damage

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•No evidence of major structural damage, such as totally destroyed floors and ceilings, that would be required for a 1993 WTC Bombing style attack

Nobody knows what damage was done to the core in the basement

•Seismic records that demonstrate no detonations at any time

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

•No witness statements consistent with the sound of a distinct detonation event

I thought that the fact they reported an “explosion” accounts for something that sounds like an explosion. This could have been liquid explosives

•Precedent in the form of the 1945 Empire State Building aircraft impact

Is not evidence that liquid explosives could have been used

because nobody knows what type of explosives, if any, were used means that liquid explosives is a possibility. and none of the evidence provided by mackey removes this possibility, in fact, some of it supports this hypothesis.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

i find it difficult to believe in the extreme that some muslim in a cave could have organised the 911 attacks given the reasons you have just outlined.

And just how would the fact that OBL was a Muslim impair his ability to have been behind the attacks?

What does the cave have to do with anything?

I find this argument to be arrogant, elitist and racist in the extreme.

 

[Lurker]

i accept that the 5/5 fraction is extremely over simplified but i like to conceptualize complicated matters into a simpler format.

Be wary of these simplifications.

conceptually i just cant imagine it. allow me, if you would, present a simple metaphor. imagine you have a spinal columns supported to remain in a vertical upright position and you drop the head. now conceptually what you are saying is that because the head is basically heavier than the first vertical column then that will be crushed then because the head is heavier than the second vertical column then that too will be crushed...and so on and so forth until there is nothing left not even then head.

Weight has NOTHING to do with structural strength. Aluminum weighs less than steel yet it can have a higher yield strength.

Anyway, back to your concept. What is more important is the factor of safety in the human vertebrae, not the weight. I assume it is much higher than 2 since I can blance heavier objects on my head than the weight of my head. Thus, the structural strength is what is resisting the weight, not the weight.

A recall building rather lightweight toothprick bridges. It was not the weight of the toothpicks that held the added weights but how we arranged them to distribute the load.