Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Belz...]

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?

If this experiment was conducted, and yielded the same results ,wouldn't the truth movement just claim it was staged ?

 

[thewholesoul]

If this experiment was conducted, and yielded the same results ,wouldn't the truth movement just claim it was staged ?

perhaps, so such an experiment should be open and transparent. if however it was carried out by an "independent" organisation, not a branch of the government then i guess that would satisfy many.

personally if the same results were achieved i would have no problem accepting them and arguing against the bombs in the basement hypothesis.

 

[thewholesoul]

Geez, talk about denial. Kid doesn't even know it was his error to begin with.

I'd ask if he knows that he's misspelling Gravy, but I don't think I want to know.

hey grravy,

typical when i point out that some people had foreknowledge you resort to spell check tactics.

how about sibel edmonds the FBI translator who learned about an Al-Queda suicide pilots plan to hit skyscrapers in the U.S. ?? i tried to get the spelling all right which means you will have nothing left to say about this.

 

[Arus808]

geez whole, you completely ignore everything that GRAVY has refuted, and others in this thread have refuted against your claims and only pick on one thing that Gravy has pointed out IN YOUR ERRORS.

seriously, stay on topic, or concede that you can't do what the topic asks

 

[thewholesoul]

prove the offical hypothesis

Why would computer models be insufficient?

Why would computer models be insufficient?

hey totovader,

the way i see it is this. over 20 or so witness testimony in the vasement reported hearing an explosion. elsewhere that day in the building numerous people reported explosions in the building aswell as fireballs.

so the question in relation to the basement testimony is were these explosions caused by explosives or a fireball. admitedly those who claim they were explosives have little evidence. we can point to structural damage and the testimony. unfortunately the vast majority steel samples that could of been tested (INDEPENDENTLY) were removed from the crime scene.

on the other hand there is an abundance of evidence supporting the fireball hypothesis. we have testimony, and the damage to the building is also explained by the fireballs.

but i beleive in the scientific method. that is observation, hypothesis, prediction and experiment. i beleive experiments should be carried out in order for the official hypothesis to prove itself. to date no experimnets past the collapse initiation have been carried out by NIST. no experiment has been carried out to demonstrate that 28kg of jet fuel will produce the result some in this forum have predicted it would do.

no experiment has been carried out on a steel frame building 8 stories high with the same design parameters of the basement. until such an experiment has been conducted i will not be convinced by any hypothesis unless it proves itself to be true.

now as expected even the suggestion that an experiment should be carried out in order to prove the official hypothesis has met resistance.
1) it cant be done: although i doubt it ever will be done, it is not by no means beyond the realm of possibility to build an 8 story structure with the same scale as the the north tower.
2) its too expensive: well the military spends millions on developing bombs then they test them to see if they works. moreover the amount of money spent by past governments investigating JFK or shuttle disasters dwarfs the money they invested when investigating 911. besides i am sure there are cheaper ways to conduct experiments.
3) it would be immoral: experimention of the the jet fuel hypothesis does not mean that the victims must necessarily be involved. it they did choose to participate in analysis of results then fine.
4) experiment using a computer simulation: i wouldnt object to a computer simulation in addition to real life experimnets. But the problem with computer simulations is that the values are programmed into the computer, for example imagine the differences in results if Ross’s calculations and not Greening’s were applied in a computer simulation of the progressive collapse.

Frankly you guys should be jumping at the chance at proving your hypothesis, you should be supporting all forms of experimentation. The fact that 6 years has past without some kind of experimnet to prove the official theory of the progressive collapse says a lot to me.

The problem i have with the fireball explanation concerning David’s testimony is how could the jet fuel get past the elevator? Mackey provides a good hypothesis. But i would like to see an elevator shaft being built 90+ floors high to the exact scale of the north tower with elevators etc. Then drop x amount of jet fuel and purposely have an ignition point at the b2 or b3 area and then simply watch to OBSERVE if the jet fuel will explode into a fireball before the falling elevator. If it does not work, then try it again. Only through proving a hypothesis through experimentation will i be convinced of the truth of the official hypothesis. This is a rational criteria to believe in something.

 

[DGM]

perhaps, so such an experiment should be open and transparent. if however it was carried out by an "independent" organisation, not a branch of the government then i guess that would satisfy many.

personally if the same results were achieved i would have no problem accepting them and arguing against the bombs in the basement hypothesis.

Go for it! The "truth" movement has been doing nothing for 6 years. Put up the dough and start the transparent investigation with simulations, models and 5 part harmony. What's stopping you?

 

[thewholesoul]

Go for it! The "truth" movement has been doing nothing for 6 years. Put up the dough and start the transparent investigation with simulations, models and 5 part harmony. What's stopping you?

you make a good point. i would love if the truthers put up the money to conduct an independent experiment.

i would love if organisations responsible for experimentation and proving their hypothesis would conduct more experiments.

i am glad you are not objecting to the idea that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation. i believe progress has been made.

what would you believe if an experiment failed to prove the offical hypothesis?

 

[T.A.M.]

Elmondohummus:

related to our discussion of barotrauma, and its presence or absence in 9/11 WTC attacks, you may find this article interesting...

http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-3pdfs/220Arnold.pdf

TAM

 

[beachnut]

you make a good point. i would love if the truthers put up the money to conduct an independent experiment.

i would love if organisations responsible for experimentation and proving their hypothesis would conduct more experiments.

i am glad you are not objecting to the idea that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation. i believe progress has been made.

what would you believe if an experiment failed to prove the offical hypothesis?

Then your experiment was screwed up!

There is not doubt except from 9/11 truth, that the towers fell due to impacts and fires.

Once again you have missed the studies confirming the WTC fell due to impacts and fires.

Most engineers could say that day one based on visual data. confirmed

The truth movement is like a person, who house burned down, and wants proof of fire.

Hearing loud noises does not make explosives. You need some more evidence; and it will be few more years until more liars make it up for you to spread some more hearsay stuff.

 

[thewholesoul]

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...

hey you researched for years and arrived at the impossible conclusion that the impact of the plane caused morelli to be thrown to the ground and explains the explosion that david and rodriguez's experienced.

the official hypothesis is the fireball caused this event and you didnt pick that up in all the years you researched?

 

[thewholesoul]

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?

i think you missed my point. the theory or hypothesis that needs to be tested is THE OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS which remains UNPROVEN because there has been no experiments that i know of which have demonstrated how jet fuel can travel down 90+floors of an air tight elevator shaft, pass the elevator, and then ignite causing a substantial degree of damage.

but dont worry there will be no experimentations because the offical story would (perhaps) be proven untrue. and the government would want that now would it?

about the funds. check out how much it costs the american people for one week in iraq. money wasted for illegally occupying a foreign country is perhaps money well spent from your perspective.

 

[DGM]

you make a good point. i would love if the truthers put up the money to conduct an independent experiment.

i would love if organisations responsible for experimentation and proving their hypothesis would conduct more experiments.

i am glad you are not objecting to the idea that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation. i believe progress has been made.

Why would I object? I only go with the evidence that has been presented.
Progress? I've always looked at all the evidence and my opinion has been refined along the way. The "truth" movement to date has produced nothing so far that has swayed me or made me rethink my position.. I do however look at their "evidence".

what would you believe if an experiment failed to prove the official hypothesis?

As I said I look at all valid evidence. If it was credible I would certainly consider it. Why wouldn't I?

 

[Slayhamlet]

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.

No, your experiment is preposterous and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Are you talking about this white smoke?

 

[thewholesoul]

There is nothing about the WTC events that suggests explosives. As before, had explosives, liquid or otherwise, been employed, we would expect to see structural, sonic, or seisomgraphic events consistent with explosives. We do not.

i do not see how turning walls into rubble, obliterating the car park, creating thick white smoke, producing a sound what dozens of witnesses claim was the result of a bomb, blowing out windows in the lobby, causing the floors and walls to shake etc etc rules out the possibility that such phenomena was caused by some kind of explosive.

i am deeply sceptical that jet fuel could slip past an elevator and then ignite in the basement levels causing this damage. and as morelli testifies what happened in the basement of the north tower occured again in the basement of the south tower. maybe it is feasible that the jet fuel did slip past the elevator and then explode at b2 and/or b3 level but i am sceptical that it could happen twice in the same level .

why, for example, did the jet fuel not explode in the b6 level, at the very base of the building, where gravity would naturally cause the jet fuel to accumulate?

and if the damage was produced by jet fuel then for me to be rationally convinced i need to observe the results of experimentation. dont get me wrong i find your explanation very convincing but to push me over the edge i need to see your hypothesis and predictions proven.

for example one cheap experimnet could construct the air tight elevator shaft with the exact design parameters as in the north tower and simply flood "above" the elevator with jet fuel and observe how the fuel can actually slip down past the elevator as opposed to speculating and proposing predictions. if indeed it can slip past the elevator we could observe the time it takes to do so, we can measure how much jet fuel passes the elevator in a certain amount of time.

once we have obtained such results we can turn to the testimony and see if it adds up. if for instance the jet fuel cannot pass the elevator in an airtight elevator shaft then you have serious problems explaining the testimony of felipe david and morelli. if it can slip past the elevator acording to your calculations we are going to need 28kg of fuel. because three elevators could reach the basement we would require roughly 9kg to pass the elevator. and if 9 kg of fuel can pass the elevator longer than the ETA you provided then you will have another problem with the timeline of the events experienced by the witnesses. and of course i would like to see an experiment where 28kg of jet fuel can produce all the damage observed in the basement of the north tower.

this experiment is feasible and inexpensive and if NIST does not wish to do it i think it would be a good idea for truthers to put their money behind it.

 

[LashL]

...i am deeply sceptical that jet fuel could slip past an elevator and then ignite in the basement levels causing this damage. ... maybe it is feasible that the jet fuel did slip past the elevator and then explode at b2 and/or b3 level but i am sceptical that it could happen twice in the same level .

...

for example one cheap experimnet could construct the air tight elevator shaft with the exact design parameters as in the north tower and simply flood "above" the elevator with jet fuel and observe how the fuel can actually slip down past the elevator as opposed to speculating and proposing predictions. if indeed it can slip past the elevator we could observe the time it takes to do so, we can measure how much jet fuel passes the elevator in a certain amount of time.

once we have obtained such results we can turn to the testimony and see if it adds up. if for instance the jet fuel cannot pass the elevator in an airtight elevator shaft then you have serious problems explaining the testimony of felipe david and morelli. if it can slip past the elevator...

My bolding above indicates to me one of the sources of your confusion.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Elmondohummus:

related to our discussion of barotrauma, and its presence or absence in 9/11 WTC attacks, you may find this article interesting...

http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/18-3pdfs/220Arnold.pdf

TAM

Thank you sir!

BTW, please pardon the relative dearth of posts. I'll respond in greater depth to this when I can. Right now, I'm away on vacation, and I just discovered that this forum is difficult to participate on through a Blackberry. Heck, it's blasted unpleasant just to browse the forums. Anyway, when I'm back with a real connection, I'll check that article out and post commentary if the article warrants it.

Thanks again!

 

[T.A.M.]

no sweat, have fun, get some sun, then be done.

TAM

 

[chillzero]

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?

No. I find your 'experiment' a joke, and your response as well, considering you ignored the fact that I responded very specifically to one point - bolding mine:

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.

Also, an 8 story building will never accurately represent what happened in the towers.

 

[thewholesoul]

My bolding above indicates to me one of the sources of your confusion.

Slip past and airtight elevator.

Ok so according to you the jet fuel cannot pass the elevator. Good i am glad we cleared that up and i happen to agree with you. Mackey also agrees with you he states post #119

There is no requirement (for jet fuel) to get past the elevators.

But as i shall explain below there are logical implications in holding this position.

But first why are the elevator shafts important? According to grravy's post #360

Fuel poured down the shafts. ls this clear?

And as mackey submits post #214 NIST provided

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

So the elevator shafts are vital to the fireball hypothesis because they provide the pathways by which the jet fuel travels down from the impact zone to the basement. The three large pathways i am assuming from diagrams in grravy’s paper are the #50 Main freight elevator shaft, #6 and #7 elevator shaft?

Q1 If jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain mike pecorara’s testimony and the smell of kerosene in B6 given the fact that only car 50 and 6/7 reached the basment level 2-3? Could the smell have been created from the explosion of cars in the car park? Mike suggests this himself “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs” and given that we know the car park was obliterated this seems to be a possible explanation.

Q2 if jet fuel cannot pass the elevators how do you intend to explain Ed McCabe’s testimony? He describes people injured, he could smell their “burnt flesh” and the wall in that room were turned to “rubble”. Now if the jet fuel cannot pass the elevator then what burnt their skin and turned the walls to rubble? If the elevators only reached B2-3 level then how could their skin get burnt on B4? According to Grravy’s paper they were injured because “several elevator pits ended there” but if the jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain their injuries?

(a)if it was by a fireball then you have to explain how jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft.
(b)If it was by heat then you have to explain how come the occupants of car #50 reported nothing about intense heat. They were not burnt either.

According to mackey post #119 eventhough he acknowledges that

We do not have a precise spot where ignition began

he states in post #127

I also speculate that the elevator impacts down below could very, very easily create electrical shorts -- this might explain why no fireballs were seen between the 45^th floor and the basement

So mackey sepculates that when car #50 impacted below it could have created an electrical short which ignited a fireball. but if that is true then why were the occupants not burnt to cinders? Why did the emergency breaks of car #5o not ignite a fireball sooner?

Q3 If the jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain Jose Sanchez’s testimony? He saw a fireball travel through the freight elevator at B4. but if the freight elevator stopped at B2or3 and jet fuel cannot pass the elevator then what produced the fireball he saw? Was it the “bomb” he reported hearing prior to the fireball? You have already pointed out that jet fuel cannot pass an elevator in an airtight shaft so please explain to me what created the fireball seen in B4?

Q4 if jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain Hurseley Lever’s testimony? He was also in the B4 level and he saw a fireball. But if car 50, 6 and 7 went no further than B2-3 and jet fuel cannot pass the elevator then what produced the fireball he saw? Was it the “bomb” that he reported hearing prior to the fireball?

Q5 If jet fuel cannot pass the elevators then how do you explain morelli’s testimony? He was thrown to the floor by an explosion and then he heard the elevator car #50 falling “you hear that (freight elevator) coming towards you”. This was “followed by blasts of intense heat”. So we know it wasnt the elevator impact that caused the explosion he heard or the intense heat because it had not impacted yet. Mackeys speculation behind the causation behind the first explosion experienced by morelli must logically be disgarded because morelli heard an explosion before the elevator impacted creating an electrical short to ignite the fireball. So what caused the explosion that threw morelli to the ground? If it wasnt a fireball produced from the elevator impact could it have been the result of an explosive?

So the main idea here is that if jet fuel cannot pass an elevator in an airtight shaft and if the elevators 50, 6 and 7 only reached level B2 -3. then how can we explain what people in the lower levels B4 in particular experienced? From their testimony they claim that walls were turned to rubble, people’s skin or hair was burnt, some were thrown to the floor, the ground and walls were shaking and ALL (except McCabe) reported hearing an explosion or bomb prior to a fireball, thick white smoke, or elevator falling.

Either jet fuel could pass the elevator and cause this phenomena or it cannot. If it can i would appreciate any explantions people would have as to how it can slip past the elevators in an airtight shaft. And if it cannot then the fireball witnessed by some in B4 was cuased by something else – perhaps explosives.

 

[thewholesoul]

I find your 'experiment' a joke.

Also, an 8 story building will never accurately represent what happened in the towers.

look i am just imaging different kinds of experiments that could be used to prove the offical hypothesis. i dont hear you coming up with any ideas as how to the official hypothesis could be proven through experimentation. have you got an imagination at all?

why will an 8 storey building built exactly to scale not accurately represent what happened in the towers that day. you cant just disagree with something and then provide no reasons for you disagreement.

i do take your point about the sound recordings. hearing something from a recording and actually experiencing the sound can be quite different however you have not offered any reasons why photos and damage to the structure could not be analysised from a planned explosion of 28kg of jet fuel.