Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Totovader]

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.

See previous post. Obviously, you're not prepared to admit you were wrong.


ETA: By the way, I just noticed that when you quoted me you removed the link where I already made this concession. Keep trying to blame me, ace- but it's all you. If you had a court, the ball would be in it.

 

[JimBenArm]

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



so america does not develop nuclear weapons??



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

Hey, dude. Get a clue. Belz is not an American.
As is true of about half the membership here.
And of course you won't retract your statement. That would be the grown-up thing to do!

 

[thewholesoul]

See previous post. Obviously, you're not prepared to admit you were wrong.


ETA: By the way, I just noticed that when you quoted me you removed the link where I already made this concession. Keep trying to blame me, ace- but it's all you. If you had a court, the ball would be in it.

i didnt read your above post before i posted my latest. i hereby retract the statement by default and for the intergrity of the forum that the vast majority of firefighters claimed that explosives were in the towers.

 

[Arus808]

no they didn/t they heard explosions. no allusion to explosives were made. YOU only quote ONE firefighter.

Please give quotes of the other 600 firefighters who said they heard or saw explosives.

 

[Totovader]

i didnt read your above post before i posted my latest. i hereby retract the statement by default and for the intergrity of the forum that the vast majority of firefighters claimed that explosives were in the towers.

Now perhaps you can explain to everyone why you would make such an assertion- what evidence led you to that conclusion? And, did the evidence suddenly disappear because I uttered some magic words several hundred posts ago?

 

[Belz...]

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

I'm asking YOU. WHO would pay for such an investigation ? If no one is prepared to pay, then let's drop this pretense and move on.

so america does not develop nuclear weapons??

I did not say that America is not developping nuclear weapons. I said we are not developping nuclear weapons.

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

Soul, perhaps it's time to let you in on a little fact: what you have just said shows that you KNOW that your statement was false, but that you will cling to that statement nonetheless, because you can't be bothered to admit to being wrong before anybody else does it. Now, you may not care what I think about this behavior, but what do YOU think about it ?

 

[thewholesoul]

I'm still trying to figure out why:

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

NIST did conduct several tests and attempted to explain up to and no further than the initial collapse . in a response to the a petition sent by familiy members, kevin ryan and richard gage etc NIST said

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"

obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven. it is not even a question of their testing being insufficient - there has been no testing or experimentations concerning global collapse. can you figure that out?

another aspect of the official hypothesis i would like to see tested is the fireball in the basement scenario. i am sceptical that the jet fuel can ignite after falling 80+floors past an elevator and explode around the same area in both towers. i am sceptical and in order to believe that the fireball hypothesis is true i will need it to be proven through experimentation. again it is not a question of the testing being insufficient - because no testing has been conducted in relation to the fuel deflagration in the basement. at least none that i am aware of.

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

We didn't test for gnomes...

who said we should test for every possibility. shadow boxing again i see. what needs to be proven are the global collapse and the fuel deflagration in the basement. and if i had to choose between these two i would prefer the former to be proven. gnomes...what are you talking about? the official hypothesis is not a hypothesis about gnomes and it should be proven through experimentation. of course if they are unable to prove the official hypothesis through testing and experimentation then their hypothesis will be about as valid as the gnomes hypothesis.

why do you try to popo the scientific method - you do know it applies to the official hypothesis? i would love if they proved their hypothesis because frankly it would be more comforting to believe that 911 was not an inside job.

 

[Pardalis]

Why don't you make an experiment and try to see if explosives in the basement could have caused a collapse the way it happened?

 

[Totovader]

NIST did conduct several tests and attempted to explain up to and no further than the initial collapse . in a response to the a petition sent by familiy members, kevin ryan and richard gage etc NIST said

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"

But now you're not only quote-mining, but moving the goalpost. We aren't talking about experiments regarding the collapse itself (see: gravity), we're talking about what caused the collapse. This is a line conspiracists often try to confuse- which NIST saw through:

That statement, in context was:

Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.

Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of "utility." NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse.

obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven. it is not even a question of their testing being insufficient - there has been no testing or experimentations concerning global collapse. can you figure that out?

Do you know what NIST stands for?

another aspect of the official hypothesis i would like to see tested is the fireball in the basement scenario. i am sceptical that the jet fuel can ignite after falling 80+floors past an elevator and explode around the same area in both towers. i am sceptical and in order to believe that the fireball hypothesis is true i will need it to be proven through experimentation. again it is not a question of the testing being insufficient - because no testing has been conducted in relation to the fuel deflagration in the basement. at least none that i am aware of.

Then the burden of proof is on you.

What does this have to do with the tests that were conducted?

who said we should test for every possibility. shadow boxing again i see. what needs to be proven are the global collapse and the fuel deflagration in the basement. and if i had to choose between these two i would prefer the former to be proven. gnomes...what are you talking about? the official hypothesis is not a hypothesis about gnomes and it should be proven through experimentation. of course if they are unable to prove the official hypothesis through testing and experimentation then their hypothesis will be about as valid as the gnomes hypothesis.

Wait- what's your evidence for bombs in the basement?

why do you try to popo the scientific method - you do know it applies to the official hypothesis? i would love if they proved their hypothesis because frankly it would be more comforting to believe that 911 was not an inside job.

Where did I say that the scientific method is invalid? I stand completely by the time-tested method. You, however, do not- and cannot.

 

[thewholesoul]

I'm asking YOU. WHO would pay for such an investigation ? If no one is prepared to pay, then let's drop this pretense and move on.

if i was american i would glady pay. WHO do you think already paid for the investigation to date? the same people who pay for the police service, the firefighters, etc etc in order words YOU already contibuted to the investigation to date and YOU and other tax payers would contribute to another investigation if it indeed went ahead.

it is really lame that you cite a surmountable finacial obstacle as a reason against a reinvestigation. very lame. but i agree lets just drop it.

I did not say that America is not developping nuclear weapons. I said we are not developping nuclear weapons.

i asked where would you prefer - if you had the choice - your taxes to go? (a) reinvestigation into 911 or (b) towards the development of nuclear weapons? i would prefer the former, what would you prefer? its a straightforward question.

ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them. so what...i never said that the tax payer was developing nuclear weapons...i merely suggested that a small portion of their taxes may be contributing to their development.

Soul, perhaps it's time to let you in on a little fact: what you have just said shows that you KNOW that your statement was false, but that you will cling to that statement nonetheless, because you can't be bothered to admit to being wrong before anybody else does it. Now, you may not care what I think about this behavior, but what do YOU think about it ?

i admitted i was wrong and retracted the statment.

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

so when are you going to finance the experimentations to prove the official hypothesis?? if you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is then to accuse truthers of something you yourself do is hipocritical.

 

[achtung circus]

You need to read for comprehension.

ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them. so what...i never said that the tax payer was developing nuclear weapons...i merely suggested that a small portion of their taxes may be contributing to their development.

I do not purport to speak for Mr. Belz, but I come from a similar spatial perspective. Can you figure out what it is?

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

no - i think you misunderstood my post. the official hypothesis concerning global collapse and fuel deflagration in the basment have not been proven yet through experimentation. because YOU support these hypothesis it is YOU (not you personally) that needs to prove your own hypothesis.

for me to beleive something to be true i need it to be proven to be true according to the scientific method. apparently you dont need a hypothesis to be proven true in order to believe that its true.

so the official hypothesis needs to proven not just for all those wacky truthers, but also for all those rational, intellectual folk who believe in the official hypothesis and beleive it to be true eventhough it has still, to date, not been proven to be true.

 

[Pardalis]

Why don't you go and try to prove your bomb in the basement theory?

 

[DGM]

no - i think you misunderstood my post. the official hypothesis concerning global collapse and fuel deflagration in the basement have not been proven yet through experimentation. because YOU support these hypothesis it is YOU (not you personally) that needs to prove your own hypothesis.

Maybe some day they will. Right now there's no urgency because there is no credible alternative theory that's a better fit to the evidence.

for me to believe something to be true i need it to be proven to be true according to the scientific method. apparently you dont need a hypothesis to be proven true in order to believe that its true.

Not when there is no credible reason to doubt it and experimentation would be impractical.

so the official hypothesis needs to proven not just for all those wacky truthers, but also for all those rational, intellectual folk who believe in the official hypothesis and believe it to be true even though it has still, to date, not been proven to be true.

No the intellectuals can grasp why experiments are not needed or impractical. Unless someone comes up with a hypothesis that better fits the evidence the "official" story will go unchallenged. More or less like it has been all a long.

The burden on the "truth" movement is to come up with a more plausible explanation. So far they're batting zero.

 

[thewholesoul]

Against my scepticism over the use of a computer model as a means of proving the official hypothesis toto says

Post #779

Why would computer models be insufficient?

Post #812

Can you explain why computer modeling of collapses or building structures is insufficient?

I want to see you try and claim that the entire science of structural engineering is invalid.

This should be good.

Later when i try to explain that even NIST admits that they have not proven the official hypothesis, toto quotes NIST’s comments in context

Post #909

(NIST’’s response) Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution

So let me get this straight. Family members and 911 truthers want NIST to provide a computer simulation in order to prove the official hypothesis. they clearly believe that a computer simulation would be sufficient. however NIST are claiming that they are unable to prove their hypothesis through a computer simulation.

So why are you asking me whether a computer simulation is insufficient when NIST are UNABLE to use a computer simulation to prove the official hypothesis!!

besides although i expressed scepticism over a computer model i never claimed it was insufficient - that was a straw man argument. i did however suggest that other methods of experimentation be employed to prove the official hypothesis regarding gravity driven progressive collapse and the fuel deflagration in the basement. now given that NIST are unable to use a computer model it seems the only other way we can prove the official hypothesis is through more traditional methods of experimentation.

but let us be clear if the official hypothesis is never proven i will never believe that it is true. and nor should anyone else. if a belief is neither verifiable or falsifiable it enters the realm of metaphysics, faith and the easter bunny.

 

[thewholesoul]

But now you're not only quote-mining, but moving the goalpost. We aren't talking about experiments regarding the collapse itself (see: gravity), we're talking about what caused the collapse. This is a line conspiracists often try to confuse

No i have not moved any goal post. I am merely stating that the official hypothesis should be proven through experimentation. If it cannot be proven true then it must be false. If it cannot be proven then why do you believe it is true and why do you expect others to believe that it to be true?

I welcome any testing conducted by NIST or FEMA or any universitiy that tries to prove the official hypothesis through experimentation. I would prefer to believe that the official narrative is true as opposed to the conspiracy theory.

- i would like the fuel deflagration in the basement proven
- i would like the progressive collapse by gravity, proven

as for the talking about the causes of the collapse and the explosions heard in the basement - well that is precisely what i am talking about. the official story claims that the explosion in the basement was caused by fuel deflagration and the progressive collapse was caused by fire and gravity. now i am saying they must prove this causal relationship through experimentation according to the scientific method.

if they are unable to prove their causal hypothesis then we need a new hypothesis that can be proven to explain progressive collapse and the explosions in the basement and through the building.

Where did I say that the scientific method is invalid? I stand completely by the time-tested method. You, however, do not- and cannot.

How can you claim to stand by the scientific method when any time i suggest an experiment to prove the official hypothesis you and others all criticize my efforts and suggest no experimentations of your own?

How can you stand by the scientific method and not support the demands of 911 truthers and family members that NIST should and must prove the official hypothesis through computer simulation and/or other methods?

How can you suggest that i do not stand by the scientifc method when i have made it clear on several occassions that i welcome any tests or experimentations in an attempt to prove the official hypothesis?

by insisting that the official hypothesis cannot be proven by any form of experimentation you are implicitly rejecting the scientific method.

 

[beachnut]

but let us be clear if the official hypothesis is never proven i will never believe that it is true. and nor should anyone else. if a belief is neither verifiable or falsifiable it enters the realm of metaphysics, faith and the easter bunny.

You have not read NIST, nor will you be able to understand it. You do not understand 9/11 and you want what? You are wrong in this falsifiable junk, it is. But then you are not an engineer or you would not need NIST or some stupid what? You have said nothing!

You do not understand the terms you are using. Why? Try again, I left out the rest is does not make sense, you seem to be using the rant of some 9/11 truth people to make a point so messed up it defies logic and description. It is easy to read NIST than your posts. But you have failed to make a point or show what NIST got wrong.

Doubt you even have a story on 9/11. No clue.

 

[thewholesoul]

as for placing the quote i took from NIST which states "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" into context - it does not make a blind bit of difference to the meaning and significance of that statement.

 

[DGM]

as for placing the quote i took from NIST which states "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" into context - it does not make a blind bit of difference to the meaning and significance of that statement.

Which is the same thing as them saying they can't explain why my town did not repave my street last year.