Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[thewholesoul]

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 ?

everything else is not fine - the topic of this thread is to discuss witness testimony in the basement that corroborates with william rodriguez.

the impact of the plane hypothesis as a causal explanation behind the "explosion" over 20 witnesses experieneced in the basement on the morning of september 11th is not just fishy it is impossible . i have covered this already see my post #467 or #476 (cant remember which). if you have anyobjections to the 12 true statments please provide your reasons.

a far more plausibale hypothesis as compared to the plane imapcting 90+floors above is that the "explosion" in the basement was caused by a fireball.

i dont know if everything in the official theory is wrong. if it is right then prove it. only then will i be rationally satisfied of its truth.

 

[CHF]

the impact of the plane hypothesis as a causal explanation behind the "explosion" over 20 witnesses experieneced in the basement on the morning of september 11th is not just fishy it is impossible .

So why did they suffer BURNS as opposed to blast injuries?

 

[thewholesoul]

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

personifying reality - how sane. maybe you should ask mr.reality if he misses mrs.imagination.

 

[Gravy]

or maybe you want to call the firefighter's that claim explosives were used in the towers liars? in loose change final cut there is a firefighter at the end who swears that the damage in the lobby was not a result of a fireball. why dont you ring him uo and call him a liar, tough guy.

You may be the most incompetent person ever to post here.

An open letter to John Schroeder, formerly of FDNY Engine 10– His conspiracist interviewers repeatedly fail to clear up his confusion, then use his confused story to try to support their claims.

 

[A W Smith]

of course i wouldnt pay, i am not american. i assume the american tax payer would pay. or a fund could be organised in a truth movement for such purposes.

how do you feel about paying taxes for the development of nuclear bombs?
after you pay for that it might even get used. of the two options i know where i would prefer my tax money to go.

Ok so you. who is not a citizen of the USA, is suggesting to me. a lifelong citizen born in the USA. where and how my tax dollars are to be spent? priceless. literally priceless. All in a quest for quelling the shouts of stupidity, ignorance and lies world wide.

NSFW - STFU

 

[LashL]

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.

Whoosh! Way to completely misunderstand my point.

The point is that the hoistways were not airtight, and there was ample opportunity for fuel to spill down them, around the elevator cars.

As I said, and as you completely failed to grasp, your use of the terms "slip past" and "airtight elevator shafts" is one of the sources of your confusion.

 

[LashL]

i was responding to i LASHL who suggested to ME that jet fuel cannot pass an elevator in an airtight shaft. mackey aslo suggested the same when he said in post #119 that "There is no requirement (for the jet fuel) to "get past the elevators."

so if your asking me to reconsider i have no problem. but if i reconsider then so shoudl lashl and mackey.

No, no, no.

I was telling you that your repeated suggestions that the elevator shafts (hoistways) were airtight, and that fuel had to somehow "slip past" the elevator cars, was wrong.

Try reading for comprehension.

 

[DGM]

of course i wouldnt pay, i am not american. i assume the american tax payer would pay. or a fund could be organised in a truth movement for such purposes.

how do you feel about paying taxes for the development of nuclear bombs?
after you pay for that it might even get used. of the two options i know where i would prefer my tax money to go.

I'm an American tax payer and so far see no serious problems with the hundreds of investigations I've already paid for. Do you have some kind of compelling evidence that has not been looked into before. Now you want me to pay because you don't understand what you read?

Do you know how many investigations are still going on?

 

[thewholesoul]

And how many of those 118 firefighters think there were controlled demolitions on 9/11?

i dont know, perhaps you should ring them up and find out?

but not to give a smart answer, the reason Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner, wanted to preserve those accounts was to avoid their accounts becaming reshaped by a collective memory.

it is quite possibly that the same firefighter's who thought that explosions were responsible for bringing the twin towers down now agree with the official explanation. but changing their minds does not remove the fact that in their oral testimonies they specifically reffered to having experienced explosions.

 

[DGM]

No, no, no.

I was telling you that your repeated suggestions that the elevator shafts (hoistways) were airtight, and that fuel had to somehow "slip past" the elevator cars, was wrong.

Try reading for comprehension.

English is not his primary language (I'm not sure what is) and it's becoming obvious that he doesn't understand the subtle nuances in the language.
*He really needs to ask and admit when he doesn't understand before he posts*.

* another friendly suggestion*

 

[A W Smith]

Typical Thyson Krupp elevator shaft cross section

personifying reality - how sane. maybe you should ask mr.reality if he misses mrs.imagination.

here ya go this is reality. You are imagining the elevator shafts to be air tight

 

[CHF]

i dont know, perhaps you should ring them up and find out?

but not to give a smart answer, the reason Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner, wanted to preserve those accounts was to avoid their accounts becaming reshaped by a collective memory.

it is quite possibly that the same firefighter's who thought that explosions were responsible for bringing the twin towers down now agree with the official explanation. but changing their minds does not remove the fact that in their oral testimonies they specifically reffered to having experienced explosions.

In other words, you're using FDNY testimony to prove a demolition even though you have no idea whether the FDNY in question even support that conclusion.

Rather dishonest of you, don't ya think?

 

[Slayhamlet]

here ya go this is reality. You are imagining the elevator shafts to be air tight

If you want to see something funny, do a Google search for "air-tight elevator". Half the results are from mindless twoofer drones repeating this idiotic meme. It's clear as day where thewholesoul gets his faulty information.

 

[T.A.M.]

thewholesoul:

1. You posted the comment about the firefighters as your own words. Only after the fact did you cop out and say it was McQueen. In future, if you are going to produce a comment that you (A) do not believe in, and/or (B) is not your own opinion, please post a link to the source, and indicate who the source is when you say it.

2. I have read the transcripts of many, many (easily over 100) of the firefighters and EMTs. I have read there "original testimonies" of the events. Of those I have read, only one or two have indicated the suspicion of "explosives" and/or "secondary devices". Now if you are dumb enough to make the leap from "explosion" to "explosive" then that is your problem, but for me, when a 110 storey skyscraper has just been hit by a jet airliner, I'd expect to hear many "explosions" without an "explosive" to be found.

TAM

 

[Belz...]

professor graeme macqueen came up with 10 accounts from the 503 testimonies from firefighters that did support the offical hypothesis. thats 2% out of the total. and he found 118 accounts that supported the explosion hypothesis.

it was for this reason that i claimed the vast majority of firefighter's testimony support the explosions hypothesis.

Soul, do you know the difference between explosions and explosives ?

 

[Belz...]

of course i wouldnt pay, i am not american. i assume the american tax payer would pay. or a fund could be organised in a truth movement for such purposes.

Nobody in the truth movement is willing to pay a cent to fund this "investigation", it seems. Says a lot about your dedication to the truth, doesn't it ?

how do you feel about paying taxes for the development of nuclear bombs?

I don't know how you could know that my taxes pay for the development of nuclear bombs. Would you care to elaborate ?

 

[Gravy]

TAM, check my post 859. None of the firefighters who described sounds like bombs or secondary devices think there were bombs or secondary devices. Most didn't know that what they were hearing was the collapse of south tower, because they couldn't see it.

"The vast majority?" To date, exactly one of the hundreds of firefighters on the scene have claimed they think explosive devices were involved: John Schroeder. And he didn't make that claim until 2007, after his positive test for cocaine use put his pension in jeopardy, and because the scumbag truthers who interviewed him didn't have the human decency to tell him that the south tower had fallen and caused the damage he saw.

thewholesoul is telling a despicable lie.

Despicable.

 

[T.A.M.]

Gravy:

Thanks...if memory serves it was someone, Cannot remember his name off the top, but he said something about "did you see that flash" to one of his comrades, who indicated that he had, and one of these two had said they thought secondary devices were used. It was a while ago, and may not have even been in the actual testimonies, but another article.

TAM

 

[Belz...]

the impact of the plane hypothesis as a causal explanation behind the "explosion" over 20 witnesses experieneced in the basement on the morning of september 11th is not just fishy it is impossible .

Based on what ? You admit that you are not a structural engineer, nor, I suspect, an engineer at all. So on what do you base your assertion that this would be impossible ?

if you have anyobjections to the 12 true statments please provide your reasons.

I don't know exactly the name of this fallacy -- somebody can fill me in -- but I like the fact that you called them "true" statements in the same sentence as asking me to name my objections to them.

a far more plausibale hypothesis as compared to the plane imapcting 90+floors above is that the "explosion" in the basement was caused by a fireball.

Fireballs don't cause explosions, chump. They're caused by them. Incendiaries, anyway.

i dont know if everything in the official theory is wrong. if it is right then prove it. only then will i be rationally satisfied of its truth.

Why don't you search "burden of proof" in google. Or, hey, try Youtube. You seem to like that place.

personifying reality - how sane. maybe you should ask mr.reality if he misses mrs.imagination.

The "missing the point" award medal has been shipped to your address. It should arrive within 4-6 weeks.

but not to give a smart answer, the reason Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner, wanted to preserve those accounts was to avoid their accounts becaming reshaped by a collective memory.

What the hell is a "collective memory" ?

it is quite possibly that the same firefighter's who thought that explosions were responsible for bringing the twin towers down now agree with the official explanation. but changing their minds does not remove the fact that in their oral testimonies they specifically reffered to having experienced explosions.

Explosions WERE responsible for bringing the twin towers down. Did you miss those giant airplanes hitting the towers ?

 

[Gravy]

Gravy:

Thanks...if memory serves it was someone, Cannot remember his name off the top, but he said something about "did you see that flash" to one of his comrades, who indicated that he had, and one of these two had said they thought secondary devices were used. It was a while ago, and may not have even been in the actual testimonies, but another article.

TAM

It occurred to many people that explosives could be involved: they were all trained to be wary of secondary devices. But no firefighter besides Schroeder has claimed, after the event, that he thinks bombs were involved. None. I've taken notes on over 14,000 pages of first responder accounts, in order to put them in context. You should read MacQueen's paper. He says he's deliberately taking the accounts out of context! Hell, in one I cite in my post above, the firefighter says nothing about explosions.

These people are such hideous creeps. And those who follow them blindly aren't much better.

Let's see if thewholesoul is adult enough to retract his despicable claim.