Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[thewholesoul]

I asked a serious and polite question. How about a serious and polite answer?

polite answers seem to be in short supply in this forum. i do apologise however for my post. it was merely a reflection of how others (not all) have responded to me.

to answer your question - i do not know the method. but i would argue that although improbable it is not impossible.

 

[AZCat]

maybe you should read gordon ross's paper. he also provides calculations. but hey nice post.

I have. There are plenty of threads here already dissecting Ross's paper.

by the way do you reject the scientifc method? is it irrational to require experimentation of a hypothesis in order to be convinced of its truth?

Why would I reject the scientific method? Where did I suggest no experimentation?


By the way, did you actually absorb what I wrote, or just dismiss it?

 

[thewholesoul]

Oh please. Balsamo and his band of idiots at pft have been debunked so thoroughly on this it's not worth rehashing. There are probably a dozen links here that have covered it as well.

The fact that you cite pft for anything reduces your credibility to zero.

why doesnt someone train a pilot for a period of time (equivalent to the hijackers) then put him in a flight simulator and see if he can pull off the same maneuvar. then place a trained and well seasoned pilot in the same simulator with the same objectve and see if he can pull off the maneuvar.

by experimenting and reconstrcution of the event we can prove if a trainy could actually do what it is claimed they have done.

 

[Reheat]

by experimenting and reconstrcution of the event we can prove if a trainy could actually do what it is claimed they have done.

Bwhahahahahaha

Do you really believe that the hijackers have been cloned?

 

[beachnut]

why doesnt someone train a pilot for a period of time (equivalent to the hijackers) then put him in a flight simulator and see if he can pull off the same maneuvar. then place a trained and well seasoned pilot in the same simulator with the same objectve and see if he can pull off the maneuvar.

by experimenting and reconstrcution of the event we can prove if a trainy could actually do what it is claimed they have done.

p4t say they were in a simulator and they could not hit the WTC. I put kids with no training, zero flight training, and they hit the WTC with a JET! A guy in Germany with a private pilots license was able to hit the Pentagon with a big JET! Darn, been done.

So I did not train the kids, and they could hit buildings with a big jet. Oops, so it seems the training was a waste of time; but there are things the terrorist learned to make their job easy. You could figure out why flight training and having the 757/767 manuals would help you do a few things to help do bad things.

You mean trainee, and you need no training to hit buildings. Try to learn and you will soon be really upset that 9/11 truth is spreading lies and using you to do it!!! Wake up!

 

[thewholesoul]

Why would I reject the scientific method? Where did I suggest no experimentation?

you didnt state either way thats why i asked the question.

but great, when we have an experiment to PROVE how the towers fell by gravity, how jet fuel caused so much damage to the basement, and how the trainy pilots executed those manouvers then my mind will be made up i will be convinced one way or the other

- because all i hear from debunkers is a hypothesis yet to be proven. just like 911 conpiracists.

 

[Gravy]

by the way whats your opinion on the white smoke rising from the basement because a kerosene fire does not produce white smoke.

Another student from the Swing Dangler School of 9/11 Research.

Or is he from the Swing Dangler Graduate School for Ignoring Answers? (NB: photos deleted from post)

 

[LashL]

Aren't they the same thing?

Good point. They do appear to amount to the same thing.

 

[Gravy]

and aeron russo in a conversation with one of nick rockerfeller was told that a major event (reffering to 911) was under way and from which the war on terror would be born.

thewholesoul should investigate who nick rockerfeller (sic) is and isn't related to and report back to us. That would be funny.

Btw, I have one of those aeron chairs. Very comfortable.

 

[LashL]

polite answers seem to be in short supply in this forum. i do apologise however for my post. it was merely a reflection of how others (not all) have responded to me.

While that appears to be a very left-handed apology, I will nonetheless accept it for the sole purpose of moving forward with the discussion.

to answer your question - i do not know the method. but i would argue that although improbable it is not impossible.

That is not a legitimate answer at all. Is it that you have nothing of substance to say about the subject, or that you are unable to follow the discussion, or is there some other reason that explains your nonsensical response?

And if you "do not know the method", why did you even respond to my question to brasil about the methods to which he/she referred, with your patently silly response?

 

[uk_dave]

the execution of the plan is what i find unbelievable. how it could of ever materialised. it should never have happened. what were the military doing?

So you're upset that the US military was unable to protect you from terrorism but you'd rather excuse this failing by ascribing something more sinister to it because that way, once the sinister plot is uncovered and the perps are brought to justice, the threat will have gone away and you will be safe again.

 

[chillzero]

To try and veer this conversation back toward the topic,

sound recordings could also be measured and replayed to witnesses such as morelli, david, etc and they could say if the sound was different or louder etc.
a dummy could be positioned in the same position as morelli and we could observe if it is thrown to the ground by the explosion caused by jet fuel.

Are you serious?
I honestly doubt very much, that many of the witnesses that day will want to be dragged in somewhere to relive those moments over and over. Just how much pain and emotional trauma do you think these people - victims, btw - should be subjected to?

Additionally, how are they supposed to respond? Memory is a weird thing, and it is doubtful that anyone could accurately listen to a sound, 6 + years later, and accurately define if it is the same as something they heard before. And that's without the additional trauma suffered.

Finally, do you honestly think anyone has the resources available to repeatedly build identical towers, to try out these theories that have no merit from the evidence available? How would anyone justify the cost?

 

[Dave Rogers]

maybe you should read gordon ross's paper. he also provides calculations. but hey nice post.

i found a good article by Gordon ross in the journal of 911 studies. its called the Momentum transfer analysis of the upper stories of wtc 1.

This is the classis problem of comprehension many in the truth movement seem to have. If you think that Ross's calculations, which contain glaring errors, are in any way equal in weight to Greening's, then you simply don't have the expertise to understand the arguments. Putting it simply, Ross takes the energy that would be expected to collapse the towers, then takes it away and pretends it never existed. Having done so, it's hardly surprising that he finds there isn't enough energy to make the towers collapse. In a physical analogy, it's like taking the engine out of a car, demonstrating that the car won't start, and concluding that cars are impossible.

It's impossible to stress this too much: Ross is wrong, and obviously wrong. Anybody who knows a small amount of mathematics and physics will be able to see this. It's not a matter of opinion.

so how do we prove something? through experimentation. if the blueprint of the twin towers was ever released perhaps a minature 1% of actual size built to scale of the twin tower could be reconstructed. and tested. then we could find out through experimentation whether or not your hypothesis is true or not. then we could demonstrate whether what i said was untrue.

The problem with this is that you need to understand the scaling laws, which requires mathematics. Your 1% scale model won't collapse, for reasons posted elsewhere in this thread, unless the support columns are underscale by about 100 times, in which case you'll claim it wasn't a fair representation of the towers. Again, you need to understand the mathematics yourself to understand the results.

Oh, and the plans of the twin towers are available.

this is the kind of proof i need to know whether 911 was an inside job or not.

The problem is not your lack of proof, it's your lack of education. Learn some basic mathematics and physics, and then you'll have a place in this debate. At the moment you're failing the entrance exam.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

i will respond to your earlier posts when i get a chance amigo.

regarding the comment above i feel offended when i am accused of being a racist so shut your claptrap i wasnt whinning i was trying to defend myself from false accusations - got it

If you don't want me to think you're whining then don't write stuff like that.

 

[Lurker]

i do agree with you but i think your overstating you case.

potential energy is about weight height of fall and gravity. weight has very much got to do with the calculations in order to determine whether the building below the impact zone was able to resist the initial collapse.

i agree structure has a lot got to do with it also but to claim weight has nothing got to do with the collapse is absurd.

Well, it is a good thing I never said weight had nothing to do with the collapse. I said the weight has nothing to do with the structural strength. I've looked through all the formulas for bending, compression, shear and tension and not one formula includes the density or weight of the struture as a variable or parameter defining the structural strength.

lets say i place an elepahant on your head - can you balance that?



going back to my basic analogy - the spin is designed to support the weight of the head. if the head on a skeleton was lifted off and dropped from a certain height it will perhaps crack the first vertibrea but it will not crush the entire vertibrae and then itself.

Because the factor of safety on the spine vs the weight of the head is quite high.

i agree that the structural strenght is resisting the weight not the the weight itself. but the weight of what is falling or being placed upon the structure should be a factor. likewise the upper portion that collapsed on the intact structure below was around 10 or 12% the weight of entire structure.

Not a factor in determining the strength. It is a factor in determining the weight. It is completely immaterial what % the falling weight is of the weight of the rest of the structure. The only thing that matters is the falling weight vs the structural strength of the lower part. When you calculate the structural strength of the lower part it is completely independent of its weight.

the intact core column below possessed structural integrity. now we could both cite professors and experts who provide calculations debating whether the intact structure could reisist the dynamic load of the falling posrtion. but what cannot be argued is that it was able to support the static load. the only way i could rationally accept the offical story is if the PROVED IT. through expermentation.

Yes, we know it supported the static weight. Luckily we have equations to relate static loads to dynamic loads and can see that the building is in trouble in that case. You may need experimentation but scientists and engineers have already performed those tests to verify the equations. I suggest going to college for engineering where you can then have labs where they verify equations through experiments. Quite enlightening. Specifically a ME or CE program would be useful to you. Alternately, you could hire a lab to do the experiments for you.

 

[thewholesoul]

Your experiment is preposterous, but whatever, I'll let Mackey respond as he can make a much better critique of it than I can.

Anyway, what white smoke ring are you talking about?

i get it...the scientific method is proposterous so we will never prove your hypothesis through experimentation.

i am talking about the white smoke reported in the witness TESTIMONY, and the white smoke you can see rising from the basement in youtude videos.

 

[thewholesoul]

It's a simple joke to you, isn't it? no answer required

You should get a clue and perhaps you might get some credibility.

ETA: This thread is 19 pages long and I've yet to see any credible, even partially substantiated posts by you. You're just another JAQ er offer.

Any further discussion of the NATO response should be taken up in a separate thread.

not JAQing off making an observation. after the first plane hit it did not take the fire department 45 mins before they reacted. after the first plane hit 45 minutes later the branch of the military responsible for reacting to such events (which they trained for) did not even react??

no-one got fired??

you can bury your head in 19 pages of sand if you like. but i agree this is off topic so lets just drop it.

 

[SDC]

i get it...the scientific method is proposterous so we will never prove your hypothesis through experimentation.

i am talking about the white smoke reported in the witness TESTIMONY, and the white smoke you can see rising from the basement in youtude videos.

Didn't this one lead to a wave of Pope jokes when it appeared? Seems familiar.

"Youtude"?? No, Itude, pal. And hetude, shetude, and ittude.

 

[SDC]

And all the little 'tudes... (I'm trying to cover all possibilities, here.)

 

[thewholesoul]

Are you serious?

yes i am serious about experimentation as a means to determine, demonstrate, verify, or assertain the truth of a particular hypothesis. may be you find experimentation a joke?

I honestly doubt very much, that many of the witnesses that day will want to be dragged in somewhere to relive those moments over and over. Just how much pain and emotional trauma do you think these people - victims, btw - should be subjected to?

firstly, some results can be obtain without calling on witnesses to recall the event. we have there testimony. secondly they dont have to experience it again as in being in the actual building where the experiment was carried out. obviously, if such an experiment was undertaken, they would be asked not forced if they would wish to partake in analysising the results (e.g photos of damage done to lobby, car park, the white smoke produced etc etc). i am not saying all would wish to analysis the results but some, perhaps even many would. i wonder if would rodriguez who believes he heard a bomb agree to analysising the results of such an experiment? what about giambanco who swears it was a bomb?

if an experiment ever went under way - i doubt asking them whether or not to look at some photos or sound recordings would be too troubling pychologically or otherwise.

besides why werent you objecting when a member of this forum says he was going to ring morelli (!!!) and ask him questions about that day?? you are obviously displaying double standards for the members in this forum. how come grravy can say why dont you ring them up all the time and when i suggest that some witnesses can be used to analysis results of an experiment you all of a sudden jump down my throat assuming the moral high ground? you should think about that.

Additionally, how are they supposed to respond? Memory is a weird thing, and it is doubtful that anyone could accurately listen to a sound, 6 + years later, and accurately define if it is the same as something they heard before. And that's without the additional trauma suffered.

not all results require asking the witnesses's for example whether the walls were turned to rubble or the lobby windows were blown out does not require the memory of the witnesses.

memory is not that weird police use it all the time when identifying mugshots of criminals. i admit the memory of the sound may not be entirely recaptured in a recording but the photos would. of course it is not going to be accurate because the experiment would not produce exactly the same result as that day. however there are general events that we would expect to see if the jet fuel hypothesis is true. walls turned to rubble, car park obliterated, windows blown out of lobby, thick white smoke and if the replica of morelli fell over or not etc etc.

as for the additional trauma - again where was your concern for the welfare of morelli when people in this forum - that you moderate - openly declared he was going to ring him up!!

Finally, do you honestly think anyone has the resources available to repeatedly build identical towers, to try out these theories that have no merit from the evidence available? How would anyone justify the cost?

ah the cost...may be it is too expensive but this is the only way i and many others can be convinced if the fireball hypothesis is true. maybe the family members who lost loved ones that day would not quibble too much about the cost to uncover the truth - that the official hypothesis prove itself. however in relation the demolition of the twin towers i would expect that experiments be undertaken to prove that fire can progressively collapse a steel frame building.