Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Totovader]

you answer my question first. i am not playing your little game. if you think that computer simulation is sufficient for PROVING progressive collapse and the fireball in the basement hypothesis then YOU PRESENT YOUR CASE.

if you read my previous posts i have presented several reasons why i would be sceptical of a computer simulation. try addressing them first - are they invalid reasons - then explain why you think they are invalid.

i also stated that i would not object to simulations but i would like simulations in addition to real life experimnets on partal modelling. i ahve also presented some ideas for experiments regardingt the fireball hypothesis. read them and get back to me amigo.

What makes you think that you get to ignore my question and demand that I answer the question you asked after that instead?

How do you think this helps your case? It's obvious you're dodging the question.

 

[Belz...]

Totovader, of course WE have to prove our "theory" right. He's just asking questions, after all!

 

[beachnut]

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.

You can pay for it; but you better save your money for an education, you lack knowledge on all topic related to 9/11 and critical thinking.

Nukes, let me see. What does your country spend money on, it appears education is not a big deal.

Let me see, you want you money to go to another investigation until you get the outcome you want. Let me guess you are from the former Soviet Union and you want 10 more seconds on the clock until you win! Yes?

The buzzer sounded 6 years ago. Now after missing what happen on 9/11, you are trying to change the conclusion to match some fairytale made up by idiots. You are missing a bag of clues on 9/11, and now serve as a reminder we must continue to fund projects to educate people and make them rational humans and not dirt dumb like 9/11 truth believers tend to be on 9/11 issues.

Which witness was your post in reference to and how did you forget to support the claim with facts?

 

[Totovader]

Totovader, of course WE have to prove our "theory" right. He's just asking questions, after all!

I'm still trying to figure out why:

1) The testing that NIST conducted and explained within the Report was insufficicent.

and

2) Why testing every single possiblility has to have some kind validity.



We didn't test for gnomes...

 

[LashL]

of course i wouldnt pay

That, in a nutshell, demonstrates quite succinctly the abject failure of the inaptly self-named "truth" movement to put its money where its mouth is.

 

[thewholesoul]

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

[qimg]http://www3.telus.net/paulbodine/stfu.jpg[/qimg]

who do you think funded the investigation by NIST, FEMA and the 911 commission? your tax is has already been used - as for further investigation and experimentation the funding will again obviously come from american tax payers. that is you - not me, since i am non-american.

in order to PROVE your own hypothesis you will need to spend some more of your taxes. i suppose i could donate to a 911 truth movement if they intended to use such donations in an attempt to conduct independent experimentations.

 

[thewholesoul]

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 ?

assuming that the 911 commission, and the work by FEMA and NIST was funded by tax payer dollars then the truth movement have already contributed to investigating 911. all i am suggesting is that more investigation is required. whats wrong with that?

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

how does the government generate money to pay for military equipment etc? do the politicians pay for the development of bombs out of their own pocket? how do you know that your taxes do not contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb?

 

[DGM]

who do you think funded the investigation by NIST, FEMA and the 911 commission? your tax is has already been used - as for further investigation and experimentation the funding will again obviously come from american tax payers. that is you - not me, since i am non-american.

in order to PROVE your own hypothesis you will need to spend some more of your taxes. i suppose i could donate to a 911 truth movement if they intended to use such donations in an attempt to conduct independent experimentations.

Why do we need to "PROVE your own hypothesis". Prove it to who? You, or a few conspiracy theorists on the internet. It's already been done unfortunately you missed it.

 

[JimBenArm]

NVM

 

[thewholesoul]

i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters as soon as totovader retracts his claim that the impact of a plane was responsible for the first explosion that Morelli described in his testimony.

the following are totovaders own words.

"Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact, the second is the collapsing elevators and jet fuel explosions down the elevator shafts that other witnesses describe"

if others in this room are unable or unwilling to admit when they are wrong i see no reason why i should.

 

[JimBenArm]

i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters as soon as totovader retracts his claim that the impact of a plane was responsible for the first explosion that Morelli described in his testimony.

the following are totovaders own words.

"Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact, the second is the collapsing elevators and jet fuel explosions down the elevator shafts that other witnesses describe"

if others in this room are unable or unwilling to admit when they are wrong i see no reason why i should.

How... mature! Yes, I won't admit I'm wrong unless he goes first! No, sir, I won't ever admit to error. Not up to me to set an example or behave properly unless someone else does it first!

No wonder I always picture these, uhm, children as just that.

 

[Totovader]

i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters as soon as totovader retracts his claim that the impact of a plane was responsible for the first explosion that Morelli described in his testimony.

the following are totovaders own words.

"Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact, the second is the collapsing elevators and jet fuel explosions down the elevator shafts that other witnesses describe"

if others in this room are unable or unwilling to admit when they are wrong i see no reason why i should.

I have no idea what you're quoting- but as I already said several times- I concede to Morelli's testimony. I wasn't there. If there's support for his statements, especially.

Not sure what that has to do with your theory since you were NEVER able to answer that question- and your attempts to push me into a corner were simply a way of avoiding that fact...

Your attitude here is quite telling, however. You've avoided the issue throughout this entire thread- and now you're so close to admitting it that you have to hold your theory hostage.

It's incredible. Hopefully you take a minute and just realize how absolutely ridiculous you're being, here.


ETA: whole refuses to accept what has already been discussed

 

[Belz...]

assuming that the 911 commission, and the work by FEMA and NIST was funded by tax payer dollars then the truth movement have already contributed to investigating 911. all i am suggesting is that more investigation is required. whats wrong with that?

What's wrong ? What's wrong is that you assume that this "new" investigation should be paid by... not you. Who, exactly, would pay for this ? I assume you're aware that it would come from taxpayers money, right ? But then, why should everyone pay for YOUR investigation ?

how does the government generate money to pay for military equipment etc? do the politicians pay for the development of bombs out of their own pocket? how do you know that your taxes do not contribute to the development of a nuclear bomb?

Mainly, because we don't develop nuclear weapons.

i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters as soon as totovader retracts his claim that the impact of a plane was responsible for the first explosion that Morelli described in his testimony.

So... you know your statement is wrong, but you'll keep it as a hostage ? How very mature.

 

[Belz...]

Your attitude here is quite telling, however. You've avoided the issue throughout this entire thread- and now you're so close to admitting it that you have to hold your theory hostage.

DAMMIT, toto! And here I thought I was being clever for using the word "hostage". Couldn't you have posted that an hour later ?

 

[twinstead]

That's okay, both of you came up with it before I could even make out how to spell "hostage"...

 

[Totovader]

DAMMIT, toto! And here I thought I was being clever for using the word "hostage". Couldn't you have posted that an hour later ?

Hah! Well, great minds think alike.

Hopefully that's a wake-up call to whole- I can't understand why anyone would act that way, except that he's pouting and trying to pit "the debunkers" against each other.

Pretty sad.

 

[thewholesoul]

What's wrong ? What's wrong is that you assume that this "new" investigation should be paid by... not you. Who, exactly, would pay for this ? I assume you're aware that it would come from taxpayers money, right ? But then, why should everyone pay for YOUR investigation ?

ask the families who lost loved ones that day and who call for a new investigation.

Mainly, because we don't develop nuclear weapons.

so america does not develop nuclear weapons??

So... you know your statement is wrong, but you'll keep it as a hostage ? How very mature.

i am waiting until totovader retracts his statment. i dont care what you or anyone else thinks.

 

[Totovader]

i am waiting until totovader retracts his statment. i dont care what you or anyone else thinks.

I linked to the relevant comments. If there was a statement for me to retract, it's been retracted by default. You only fall back on this when you're put in a corner and cannot resolve the contradictions in your statements on your own.

Obviously you do care what others think- because you're trying to pit us all against each other. I'm pretty sure there is not a rational person here who would have a problem pointing out that I'm wrong- and just in case there is, I would appreciate any corrections to any statements I have made.

It's important to note that you entirely avoided my question as to why it would be relevant as to the sequence of events. The link to that post shows the repeated attempts from me to get you to answer this question, and your incessant refusal to do so.

So, whole- let's have it.

 

[thewholesoul]

I have no idea what you're quoting- but as I already said several times- I concede to Morelli's testimony. I wasn't there. If there's support for his statements, especially.

Not sure what that has to do with your theory since you were NEVER able to answer that question- and your attempts to push me into a corner were simply a way of avoiding that fact...

Your attitude here is quite telling, however. You've avoided the issue throughout this entire thread- and now you're so close to admitting it that you have to hold your theory hostage.

It's incredible. Hopefully you take a minute and just realize how absolutely ridiculous you're being, here.

hahahahahah, the quote is your and i took it from our youtube conversation.

perhaps you have an idea of having a youtube dialogue? but i was not surprised that you cannot even admit your own words. so i guess it will a while before i retract my statment. first you have to recognise that the quote i posted was your own statment and then you will have to retract it.

heres the conversation again, maybe it will jog your fickle memory

i said "another corroborating testimony is from construction worker Phillip Morelli. he was below the "alleged" explosion in the basement. notice he describes two explosions separated by time in tower one".

then you said "No, Morelli's testimony coincides with the official account. His description of a first explosion is the plane impact, the second is the collapsing elevators and jet fuel explosions down the elevator shafts that other witnesses describe".

in this forum i have been arguing against this claim for ages and my final post against the claim the explosion was caused from the plane impact was post #476.

like i said i will retract my statment concerning the firefighters once totovader retracts his. and not a moment before. i just want to see can anyone in this room beside myself can admit when they were wrong.

as for your question about whether computer simulation is insufficient or not as an experiment, i will answer that in time since you prefer to counter punch and havent the fibre to present your own case for scutiny.

 

[SDC]

WS, you are as wrong and misguided as a person can be. And has been said many times, if you want a new investigation to prove your claims, go right ahead. Take up a collection. The existing investigations are satisfactory to practically everyone else.

As for Morelli, who knows? At this point, who can say? Why fret about it? Nothing in his recollections is important to any case.

And please learn to use your shift key. Whatever may be your first language, it probably makes use of it, or the equivalent, as well. To continue to post such illiterate messages is insulting.