Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[thewholesoul]

I don't have time to read each and every post in every thread. That's why we have the report function. As I said - take it to forum mgt if you have any evidence of double standards. .

like i said i wouldnt be bothered. look your a great moderator the best i have ever seen - does that make you feel better?

The world isn't as black and white as you seem to believe it to be, .

well i suggest you stop making assumptions about what otehr people think, beleive and do.

and I don't propose any hypothesis of my own. That's what I pointed out to you. .

nobody is proposing a hypothesis of their own in this room, havent you noticed?

You should stop making assumptions about what other people think, believe, read and do..

i do try.

I would suggest you would be better placed to stop sidestepping totovader, and Slayhamlet, and give them decent responses to the posts they have taken time to put to you.

i respect your biased opinion i wished totovader would answer some of my questions for a change. i give him a yes or no question and he replys with a question for me. thats sidestepping. if you beleive my responses are poor then read totovader offically debunked - you know he actually believed that teh explosion experienced by the witnesses's in the absement was cuased by the plane impacting 90+floors above.

i too spent time in writing responses but i suppose totovaders time is more valuable than mine.

anyways have a merry christmas each and all...i will be back in a few days or so with a dreadful hangover.

 

[thewholesoul]

If you were involved in a rather serious car accident and, years later, your insurance company came to you with a recording of a recreation they put together and asked you if it sounded like the accident you were involved in, what would you answer? Could you answer?

ridiculous comment.

NIST and underwritings labraotories ARE conducting experiments to prove their hypothesis. i want to see more experiments. dont you?

if the man was injured because the car crashed then that experiment has been carried out tested perhaps a million times with crash test dummys.

i already distanced myself from the sound recordings being replayed to a witnesses. go read my past posts.

why dont you mention the other experiments i proposed? can you present an experiment yourself that could verify or falsify your own hypothesis - or are you yet another victim of lack of imagination in this room?

 

[thewholesoul]

Well the millions of truthers out there should all contribute $5 each to pay for a new investigation free of government interference. With all this money the truthers won't have to rely on computer simulations, they'll have enough money to buy a 757 and crash it into a large building they'll also buy.

I'm looking forward to it.

funny.

that would be a sight.

 

[tsig]

ideally yes, but in reality the sensationalist methods you describe above are not feasible. if it cannot be achieved through such sensationalist methods then some kind of experimentation can and should be devised. but not all arsons or plane crashes are nearly as controversial or mysterious as 911 and so do not merit the whole nine yards. because 911 was such a historical precedent i believe that every effort should be taken to test and prove the offical hypothesis.



so modelling disasters with full or even partial models IS INSANE...that means the crowd at NIST and underwriters labratory are a bunch of nuts - can you imagine they even reconstructed scale models of a floor, its trusses with fireproofing etc and exposed them to a kerosene fire?? the outrage, these scientists experimenting with partial models trying to prove their hypothesis and understand the disaster of 911 should all be in staright-jackets!!

as you wisely point out while an investigator will "assess the scene, collect evidence and data, analyse it and reach a conclusion" it is the scientist who takes that conclusion or working hypothesis and proves it through experimentation.



were those building assemblies full or EVEN PARTIAL MODELS?? congratualtions you just contradicted yourself.

look i have no problem with computer models but as i explained in a previous post the results will be influenced by the values we punch into the computer. consequently dr.greenings computer model will have an entirely different outcome to dr ross's computer model.

if you are so confident with computer models how would you feel if the scholars for 911 truth were responsible for it. this is exactly how i feel when government sponsored NIST are incharge of the computer modelling.

yes they perfomred numerous tests i welcome that but as you well know they did not test or prove progressive collapse. their investigation stopped at the point of initial collapse. so i want to see more tests to prove their own hypothesis of how progressive collapse was inevitable. if it is inevitable it should be reproducable and demonstratable through observation of something other than a computer model.

furthermore i have not heard of any experiments proving the fireball hypothesis. that jet fuel can travel down 90+floors and explode in the basement B2 -B3 level and do it again in the south tower despite the plane impacting lower and the jet fuel had subsequently a shorter distance to travel down and aerate.

it is not beyond the realms of possibility to construct just an identical elevator shaft to the height of the south tower below impact zone (50-60 floors high). and drop the jet fuel with an ignition intentionally placed at the b2-3 level. if the official hypothesis is true it will explode and deflagalate at least once in a 100 trials.

we can determine also through a simple experiment how the jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft fairly easily. and given that fireballs were witnessed in b4 level below the freight elevator and 6 and 7. then we must conclude that jet fuel can pass the elevator - so lets find out how through experimentation.

the seismic recordings of exploding 28kg can be compared with the ones we already have. we can build an eight storey building with identical features as the twin towers - if you consider the amount of money spent of making a nuclear bomb or missile i feel that allocating the money from one weapon of mass destruction and redistributing it in pursuit of the truth behind 911 is well worth it. dont you?



once again you are contradicting yourself my firend. if testing partial or full models is insane then NIST and underwriters are insane for doing precisely that. if it is ridiculous to model the collapse other than through computers then NIST are behaving ridiculous becuase that is precisely what they have been doing - in addition to - computer simulation.

it is important to note that computer modelling is not the only way to experiment or prove a theory...i am not even sure if it qualifies as an experiment because it does not occur and is not observed in the REAL world. scientists do not experiment on yeast cells, fruit flies and lab rats through computer modelling and simulations that would be absurd. bombs are tested by exploding them in the REAL world not through computer simulation.

again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination. can you seriously not imagine a way as to prove, test, verify, or falsify your own hypothesis? if thats what your telling me then your belief that the offical hypothesis is true is within the realm of flying pigs and lepracons.

i agree and welcome that NIST and underwriters have many disparate tests upon the structural steel and fireproofing...i merely want to see more tests...i do not understand the resistence to more testing in this forum, the defeatist attitude that says it cannot be done, or if it can be done then it should not be done.

if you want to know the truth, if you want to prove your hypothesis then you should support experimentation to prove your hypothesis. if you do not beleive we can or should prove your hypothesis then how can you expect me or anyone esle to believe it is true? more to the point why do you beleive it is true if the scientfic method has not be applied to every aspect of the offical hypothesis, namely - the progressive collapse and the fireball theory etc

You are swinging wildly and becoming more and more incoherent.

Why should anybody try to prove anything to you. You Know What Happened.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Can you answer my question, please, thewholesoul? Is this the white smoke you were talking about in post #756 "rising from the basement in youtube videos"?

 

[thewholesoul]

You are swinging wildly and becoming more and more incoherent.

Why should anybody try to prove anything to you. You Know What Happened.

hey chilezero notice how this gentlemen presented a really insightful response.

do you believe in the scientific method? yes or no?

NIST has been and will continue to condut experiments to prove theis hypothesis.

NIST to date has not proven through experiment the progressive collapse or the fireball hypothesis.

i think they should prove these particular aspects included in their overall their hypothesis.

dont you? dont you think the official hypothesis should be proven.

and what bias, the post you are responding to clearly points out that a contradiction was made. yet you brush past that and come in swinging and claiming i am incoherent.

why dont you present a case instead of this all too familiar counter punching approach? present a case as to why experiments can not or should not be conducted in order to prove the offical hypothesis. can you do that? if not your just wasting my time.

 

[thewholesoul]

Can you answer my question, please, thewholesoul? Is this the white smoke you were talking about in post #756 "rising from the basement in youtube videos"?

sorry amigo, yes that is the white smoking i was reffering to.

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive because white smoke is never produced from explosives. and you will make a rational and convincing effort in explaining your case - because the only possibility is the fireball scenario.

then i will say well why dont your prove your fireball hypothesis through experimentation.

then you will say no dont be ridiculous for no good reason. then i will say well how do you expect me to believe your very convincing hypothesis if you are not willing to even accept that it should be tested through experimentation according to the scientific method.

then you will say....??

 

[Alt+F4]

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive because white smoke is never produced from explosives. and you will make a rational and convincing effort in explaining your case - because the only possibility is the fireball scenario.

I can explain it to you rationally and with convincing effort. My brother-in-law, employed for 20 years with the FDNY was a Fire Marshall (title for arson inspector in NYC) and he said there was no explosives. He worked the pile for 6 months begining on 9/11/01 and has a BS in Fire Science from CUNY/John Jay College.

 

[thewholesoul]

I can explain it to you rationally and with convincing effort. My brother-in-law, employed for 20 years with the FDNY was a Fire Marshall (title for arson inspector in NYC) and he said there was no explosives. He worked the pile for 6 months begining on 9/11/01 and has a BS in Fire Science from CUNY/John Jay College.

1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building. so we have conflicting testimony that does not mean that explosives could not have possibly been planted in the building.

2 - the latter part of my post suggested that the fireball hypothesis be tested through experimentation. whats your views on that?

 

[T.A.M.]

ideally yes, but in reality the sensationalist methods you describe above are not feasible. if it cannot be achieved through such sensationalist methods then some kind of experimentation can and should be devised. but not all arsons or plane crashes are nearly as controversial or mysterious as 911 and so do not merit the whole nine yards. because 911 was such a historical precedent i believe that every effort should be taken to test and prove the offical hypothesis.

They are not sensationalist methods, they are simply not feasible, you and I know it. You called them "sensationalist" as a means of making me look like I was building a strawman, which I am not.

so modelling disasters with full or even partial models IS INSANE...that means the crowd at NIST and underwriters labratory are a bunch of nuts - can you imagine they even reconstructed scale models of a floor, its trusses with fireproofing etc and exposed them to a kerosene fire?? the outrage, these scientists experimenting with partial models trying to prove their hypothesis and understand the disaster of 911 should all be in staright-jackets!!

as you wisely point out while an investigator will "assess the scene, collect evidence and data, analyse it and reach a conclusion" it is the scientist who takes that conclusion or working hypothesis and proves it through experimentation.



were those building assemblies full or EVEN PARTIAL MODELS?? congratualtions you just contradicted yourself.

When I said "full or partial" models I was referring to the buildings as a whole (meaning to fully or partially reconstruct the skyscrapers)...

look i have no problem with computer models but as i explained in a previous post the results will be influenced by the values we punch into the computer. consequently dr.greenings computer model will have an entirely different outcome to dr ross's computer model.

This is incorrect. NIST's Models were based on data sets taken from evidence collected. Whether Greening puts in the values, or Ross, the facts are the facts, the values do not change...

if you are so confident with computer models how would you feel if the scholars for 911 truth were responsible for it. this is exactly how i feel when government sponsored NIST are incharge of the computer modelling.

Fine, have the "scholars" produce such a model, then allow others to verify their models (which I believe others did with the NIST models, but I am not certain). Jones should do the same with his Thermite Hypothesis (release his data and allow others to verify).

yes they perfomred numerous tests i welcome that but as you well know they did not test or prove progressive collapse. their investigation stopped at the point of initial collapse. so i want to see more tests to prove their own hypothesis of how progressive collapse was inevitable. if it is inevitable it should be reproducable and demonstratable through observation of something other than a computer model.

You well know they have explained on a number of occasions why they did not do this...if you have issue with this, complain to them.

furthermore i have not heard of any experiments proving the fireball hypothesis. that jet fuel can travel down 90+floors and explode in the basement B2 -B3 level and do it again in the south tower despite the plane impacting lower and the jet fuel had subsequently a shorter distance to travel down and aerate.

Why is that the responsibility of NIST. They were not a criminal/forensic investigating body. They were in charge of building performance.

it is not beyond the realms of possibility to construct just an identical elevator shaft to the height of the south tower below impact zone (50-60 floors high). and drop the jet fuel with an ignition intentionally placed at the b2-3 level. if the official hypothesis is true it will explode and deflagalate at least once in a 100 trials.

we can determine also through a simple experiment how the jet fuel can pass an elevator in an airtight shaft fairly easily. and given that fireballs were witnessed in b4 level below the freight elevator and 6 and 7. then we must conclude that jet fuel can pass the elevator - so lets find out how through experimentation.

the seismic recordings of exploding 28kg can be compared with the ones we already have. we can build an eight storey building with identical features as the twin towers - if you consider the amount of money spent of making a nuclear bomb or missile i feel that allocating the money from one weapon of mass destruction and redistributing it in pursuit of the truth behind 911 is well worth it. dont you?



once again you are contradicting yourself my firend. if testing partial or full models is insane then NIST and underwriters are insane for doing precisely that. if it is ridiculous to model the collapse other than through computers then NIST are behaving ridiculous becuase that is precisely what they have been doing - in addition to - computer simulation.

it is important to note that computer modelling is not the only way to experiment or prove a theory...i am not even sure if it qualifies as an experiment because it does not occur and is not observed in the REAL world. scientists do not experiment on yeast cells, fruit flies and lab rats through computer modelling and simulations that would be absurd. bombs are tested by exploding them in the REAL world not through computer simulation.

again like chillzero we have another person with a cronic shortage of imagination. can you seriously not imagine a way as to prove, test, verify, or falsify your own hypothesis? if thats what your telling me then your belief that the offical hypothesis is true is within the realm of flying pigs and lepracons.

i agree and welcome that NIST and underwriters have many disparate tests upon the structural steel and fireproofing...i merely want to see more tests...i do not understand the resistence to more testing in this forum, the defeatist attitude that says it cannot be done, or if it can be done then it should not be done.

if you want to know the truth, if you want to prove your hypothesis then you should support experimentation to prove your hypothesis. if you do not beleive we can or should prove your hypothesis then how can you expect me or anyone esle to believe it is true? more to the point why do you beleive it is true if the scientfic method has not be applied to every aspect of the offical hypothesis, namely - the progressive collapse and the fireball theory etc

Constructing an elevator shaft to stand freely at 50-60 storeys? That I would like to see...lol

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building. so we have conflicting testimony that does not mean that explosives could not have possibly been planted in the building.

2 - the latter part of my post suggested that the fireball hypothesis be tested through experimentation. whats your views on that?

The Bolded is an utter lie, and you should retract it, or prove that the MAJORITY of testimony from them indicate this.

I have read many, many testimony (over 100) from the fire fighters, and have found only one or two that even imply such a thing.

You are a liar for this, and you are pissing on their graves.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

you want a hypothesis proposed wholesoul...here...

I propose that someone on the 60th floor dropped a grenade down the elevator shaft, and it then exploded in the basement...

Now prove me wrong...prove me right...use full or partial models to do so...there you go.

TAM

 

[Alt+F4]

the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building.

Sorry, but you're wrong. I'm from a firefighter family and have never, ever meet an FDNY member that thought it was anything other than the plane crashes. Besides my brother-in-law there were many other experienced Fire Marshalls there that day and afterwards. 347 of their members died, don't you think that if these professionals even suspected something other then the plane crashes they would have spoken up in a formal manner and demanded an investigation?

Keep in mind that FDNY members also said there was a bomb at Stuyvesant High School that morning, there wasn't.

 

[Slayhamlet]

sorry amigo, yes that is the white smoking i was reffering to.

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive because white smoke is never produced from explosives. and you will make a rational and convincing effort in explaining your case - because the only possibility is the fireball scenario.

No, that white smoke is neither from a basement bomb nor burning jet fuel, but from a burning car well outside the WTC.

then i will say well why dont your prove your fireball hypothesis through experimentation.

then you will say no dont be ridiculous for no good reason. then i will say well how do you expect me to believe your very convincing hypothesis if you are not willing to even accept that it should be tested through experimentation according to the scientific method.

then you will say....??

Bizarre. I have no problem with experimentation done in accordance with the scientific method. The fact is your proposed experiment is seriously flawed due to your limited understanding of the event. That's all.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

now its your turn to explain to me why it could not possibly be the result of an explosive. . .

Because it's a burning car: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klgf3aMuczA

Edit: Bah. Slayhamlet beat me.

 

[thewholesoul]

They are not sensationalist methods, they are simply not feasible, you and I know it. You called them "sensationalist" as a means of making me look like I was building a strawman, which I am not.

well if you knew we both thought they were not feasible why then did you bother to post them? i never claimed that we should buld a full scale tower and crash a 747 into them. if thats not a strawman that what is?

When I said "full or partial" models I was referring to the buildings as a whole (meaning to fully or partially reconstruct the skyscrapers)...

you should have been clearer then when making your comments. and underwriters did build "partial" floor models of the trusses of wtc and tested it so i fail to see your point.

This is incorrect. NIST's Models were based on data sets taken from evidence collected. Whether Greening puts in the values, or Ross, the facts are the facts, the values do not change...

tell me how could a computer simulation prove the fireball hypothesis in the basement?

Fine, have the "scholars" produce such a model, then allow others to verify their models (which I believe others did with the NIST models, but I am not certain). Jones should do the same with his Thermite Hypothesis (release his data and allow others to verify).

i suppose funding is an issue, something that the scholars would lack. however i would love to see them produce a model and put it up for scrutiny.

i agree jones should release his data backing his thermite hypothesis.

You well know they have explained on a number of occasions why they did not do this...if you have issue with this, complain to them.

i do have issue and so should you. because NIST has only investigated and tested up until the initial collpase they have not tested the progressive global collapse or the fireball scenario hence the latter remains to be proven.

besides the families who had victims arent too pleased with their explanation 6 years after the event.

Why is that the responsibility of NIST. They were not a criminal/forensic investigating body. They were in charge of building performance.

well who then is responsible? if there is a government body responsible they should get to it.

Constructing an elevator shaft to stand freely at 50-60 storeys? That I would like to see...lol

i expected you would say something like this. of course in order to stand vertically it would require some form of support structure. becasue i did not mention the support struture does not mean that i suggested the evevator shaft should be free-standing. saying that i said it should stand freely is another strawman because i never siad it should stand freely.

look i am just looking for ideas of how your official hypothesis could be tested, verified or falsified. are you trying to saying that there is no possible way we can test the fireball theory? if that is what you are saying then your belief in the fireball hypothesis is metaphysical i.e. cannot be observed, measured, tested or proven.

given that the elevator shaft being 50-60 floors high is too incredulous for you perhaps we could make a scale model? when i suggested that a scale model be made for the twin towers someone pointed out that this would violate the scale laws. this was a fair and valid objection. but i am not sure the scale laws would apply to dropping jet fuel a certain height and observing if it will ignite below. so maybe a smaller model could be constructed. may be not?

so before you start laughing at my suggestions maybe you should use a little imagination and device an experiment that could verify the fireball hypothesis.
you are interested in proving your hypothesis right?

 

[Gravy]

1 - i am not doubting your sincerity and the credentials of your borther-in-law but the vast majority of firefighters testimony contend that explosives or secondary devices were used in the building.

Some lies are just lies. This lie stinks.

thewholesoul, I've taken you off ignore so I'll see your retraction and apology.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Alright, then.

Who would pay for this "experiment", then ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

So, what you're saying is that, although everything ELSE is fine, the fact that the impact could have caused an incident in the lower levels sounds fishy to you, so like a good Hollywood movie investigator it now means that everything about the "theory" is wrong ?

 

[Belz...]

have you got an imagination at all?

No need. We've got reality to keep up company.