Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[A W Smith]

they did better. they did a full scale re-enactment

hahahahhaha - the terrorists proved the official hypothesis of global collapse

what is the major malfunction of people in this room??

news flash

- the official hypothesis has not been proven
- the official hypothesis has not been proven

get over it.

pointing out the "same result" does not prove that gravity caused the total collapse. THERE HAS BEEN NO TEST THAT PROVED THE OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS.

if your saying terrorists proved total collapse of te twin towers then explain to me please did they employ the scientific method??? hahahhahah

yes they did use a scientific method. Hit the south tower lower in the theory that a larger mass over the impact area will cause the building to collapse sooner. Observe., Compare results.

 

[thewholesoul]

ok going back to the topic.

rodriguez heard an explosion. so did the following people. their testimony was not used by NIST

Paramedic Daniel Rivera “did – you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop?...i thought it was that.

Witness timothy burke “the building popped, lower than the fire...i was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion”

Firefighter edward cachia – “it actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives...”

Assistant comissioner stephan gregory “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”

so what explains their experiences? and why did NIST not use their testimony?

 

[thewholesoul]

yes they did use a scientific method. Hit the south tower lower in the theory that a larger mass over the impact area will cause the building to collapse sooner. Observe., Compare results.

observation of an event is not the scientific method.

are you really saying that everytime i watch the south tower being demolished first and compare that to the north tower which was demolished second that i am actually conducting an experiment???

the official hypothesis has not been proven - thats a fact. your assuming that the above weight was the cause of the global collapse. your assumptions must be proven in order to establish their truth.

 

[pomeroo]

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

it is those who endorse the official hypothesis that need to prove that once the initial collapse has started it could not have been stopped.

it is the person who asserts or otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition - i.e. that global callapse ensued from the initial collapse - bear the burden of proof.

if or when the official hypothesis is proven i will accept it. if however it is not proven then the official hypothesis must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

Why do conspiracy liars pretend that a trivial question is important?

Yes, we all understand that no real scientists or engineers are actually wondering if anything could have magically impeded the collapse once the avalanche got rolling.

The real question, to repeat, is why do conspiracy liars think they might be buying time for their dying fantasy by pretending that there is a genuine issue here?

Tell us what conceivably could have held up the collapse once it began.

 

[thewholesoul]

hey everybody

what caused the ignition of the jet fuel in the elevator shaft? does anybody know?

 

[thewholesoul]

Why do conspiracy liars pretend that a trivial question is important?

Yes, we all understand that no real scientists or engineers are actually wondering if anything could have magically impeded the collapse once the avalanche got rolling.

The real question, to repeat, is why do conspiracy liars think they might be buying time for thier dying fantasy by pretending that there is a genuine issue here?

Tell us what conceivably could have held up the collapse once it began.

hmmm - perhaps the intact outer and core columns i would imagine

 

[pomeroo]

this is a fantasy forum if your suggesting that observing the total collapse of the twin towers proves that it was caused by gravity!!!

according to my "visual proof" the pulverisation and total collapse was caused by demoltion.

hypothesis are proven throught the scientific method.

You and your fellow liars always duck the total rejection of your fantasy by people who actually work in the demolition industry. You know nothing about demolition. Why should your uninformed, agenda-driven guesses be taken seriously?

 

[pomeroo]

hmmm - perhaps the intact outer and core columns i would imagine

So, we have established that you are a total ignoramus.

End of thread.

 

[Arus808]

hey everybody

what caused the ignition of the jet fuel in the elevator shaft? does anybody know?

Are you #$@#$@ serious?

 

[Gravy]

Are you #$@#$@ serious?

Oh, innocent Arus! Everyone knows that not a single piece of flaming debris could have fallen down those shafts, which magically sealed themselves after being hit by airliners, and not a single spark could have been caused by anything in the shafts. It's umpossible!

 

[Arus808]

these idiots have to go back to freaking elementary school. the first thing they TEACH you about FIRE safety is that you need three ingredients to start a fire: FUEL, OXYGEN and HEAT! there was a hell a lot of fuel! A TON of oxygen and damn, those planes are the SOURCE of the heat!

 

[beachnut]

this is a fantasy forum if your suggesting that observing the total collapse of the twin towers proves that it was caused by gravity!!!

according to my "visual proof" the pulverisation and total collapse was caused by demoltion.

hypothesis are proven throught the scientific method.

Still no facts to support anything you are saying. What are you saying. Do you know how hot the inside of jet engine is?
Are you an engineer?
As an engineer, my first guess on 9/11, as I watched the WTC tower fall. Impact, fire, and collapse caused by gravity. You see gravity is the big force on 9/11 right behind the fuel of the jets and the fires in the buildings. Gravity was like 136 tons of TNT being released as KE as the building fell, the energy in the fuel was equal in energy to 315 tons of TNT, and the fires, the office fires were BIG. And as an engineer it was easy to calculate some energy models to prove gravity collapse as confirmed by the failure on 9/11 is real!

As you failed to understand how steel fails in fires, you just repeat the old junk hearsay talk from 9/11 truth. No ability to calculate anything and show anyone why any of the studies done about the WTC are false. You are the one who says the Chief Engineer on the WTC is wrong! You have to come up with some real stuff, not talk to prove your pathetic ideas are true. So far you have just talked, you said something about gravity not able to do it. You are wrong. You say there was a demolition by explosives but failed to show the facts and evidence to support your delusion. It is a delusion because you have no facts! Do you understand how this works, you must present facts, not talk.

You failed, try again after you study 9/11 for a few years!

 

[Totovader]

Oh, innocent Arus! Everyone knows that not a single piece of flaming debris could have fallen down those shafts, which magically sealed themselves after being hit by airliners, and not a single spark could have been caused by anything in the shafts. It's umpossible!

And if you can't identify the exact source of the ignition- put it into thewholesouls hand and then carbon date it... "the official story is unproven because it doesn't follow the scientific method".

Of course- we don't know if thewholesoul even exists. He has yet to prove he was born.

 

[pomeroo]

Oh, innocent Arus! Everyone knows that not a single piece of flaming debris could have fallen down those shafts, which magically sealed themselves after being hit by airliners, and not a single spark could have been caused by anything in the shafts. It's umpossible!

I'm always curious when I hear such "questions" being asked: if you doused the jackass with gasoline and asked him to strike a match, would he ask, "What's the big deal? So, what's supposed to happen?" Really? You think he doesn't know?

 

[Belz...]

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

Whole, the accepted theory IS the official one. That means it's YOUR burden to prove it wrong.

please eloborate

No, YOU get an education.

how many people have i presented in this thread that claimed that they heard an "explosion"??????????????

I said: not a single explosion can be seen or heard on the videos. People hear all kinds of stuff when big things fall down, and so far it's consistent with what we see on the video. I also repeat: NO TRACE of explosives were found. How do you explain that ?

moreover there are plenty of you tube videos where you can hear explosions.

Link to one, please.

yes i contend that the intact section below the impact zone should have arrested the initial collapse. you contend that it could not have arrested the initial collapse - so prove your hypothesis because your hypothesis is the only hypothesis under investigation.

No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop such a large falling mass. YOU prove the opposite. I don't have to show that every engineer on the planet is right.

what a lame response. your saying that because there is no tower standing, that both towers displayed a global collapse that somehow that proves their global collapse was caused by gravity. what a joke.

No, that's not what I said. Again you show you have no reading ability.

 

[Belz...]

ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them.

No, that is definitely not what I'm saying. Perhaps you should check some of your assumptions before you procede with your reply.

Did you get the answer, Thewholesoul ?

 

[thewholesoul]

Oh, innocent Arus! Everyone knows that not a single piece of flaming debris could have fallen down those shafts, which magically sealed themselves after being hit by airliners, and not a single spark could have been caused by anything in the shafts. It's umpossible!

dear grravy thanks for your reply. at least you provided an answer unlike others in the thread who still prefer insults.

- you suggested two possible causes pertaining to the ignition of the jet fuel (a) flaming debris and (b) sparks

- because no experiments were conducted which proved that the jet fuel was in fact caused by flaming debris or a spark 60-90 floors beneath the impact zone we will just have to take your word or unproven assumption for granted.

so lets apply some critical thinking to the flaming debris hypothesis
of course there was flaming debris from the impact and explosion of the plane. this occurred on the 93rd foor in the north tower.

now i know you are all very intelligent folk in this room so may be one could explain to me how flaming debris could possibly fall 90+ floors down the elveator shaft but only ignite the jet fuel once it had past an evelator and reached the b2-3 level?

now according to Morelli's testimony he was thrown to the floor on a second occassion when he ran across to the south tower. so despite the fact that the planes hit on different levels the flaming debris ignited at the same basement level b2-3.

one would expect that if the debris was flaming it would have ignited the jet fuel in the elevator before reaching the basement. i would love to an experiment which could demonstrate how this could possibly have happened.

the spark hypothesis

first question is what caused the spark or sparks?
second, assuming the emergency brakes of the freight elevator produced sparks how come that did not ignite the jet fuel?
third, how come jet fuel ignited twice in both towers at the same b2-3 location?

so what caused the spark in the elevator? and once we agree on what could have caused the spark an experiment is needed in order to prove that a spark could ignite the falling jet fuel.

 

[DavidJames]

...and once we agree on what could have caused the spark an experiment is needed in order to prove that a spark could ignite the falling jet fuel.

I would like to see an experiment which proves that the above quote was not a joke designed to make 9/11 CTists look bad.

 

[thewholesoul]

Whole, the accepted theory IS the official one. That means it's YOUR burden to prove it wrong.

i will explain to you again. the official theory is not proven. the official hypothesis is accepted by supporters of the official hypothesis. it is not accepted by supporters of the demolition hypothesis.

Proof means the conclusive establishing of the truth of a proposition.
the official hypothesis asserts that the buildings were demolished due to gravity. it is a FACT that this assertion has not been proven by the scientific method.

if the official hypothesis is proven then the demolition hypothesis is debunked. if the official hypothesis is tested and cannot be proven then we must abandon the official hypothesis and test an alternative hypothesis.

No, YOU get an education..

i am educated enough not to resort to insults when engaging in a dialogue

I said: not a single explosion can be seen or heard on the videos. People hear all kinds of stuff when big things fall down, and so far it's consistent with what we see on the video. I also repeat: NO TRACE of explosives were found. How do you explain that ?..

if there is no shortage of testimony claiming they heard explosions it is a utterly ridiculous statemnet to say that "not a single explosion was heard on video" even if there was no video footage of explosions heard it does not NEGATE the testimony.

but here is a list of videos i found on youtube where you can hear with your own ears explosions. enjoy.

Re: 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1

9/11 Twin Towers: Bomb in the lobby!

Account of North Tower Explosions from the New Jersey Shore

EXPLOSIVES going off in WTC CLEAR AUDIO! 911 Demolition

9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings

as i said i will get to the traces of explosives found on a later date.

and maybe you can provide me with a list of "all the knids if stuff" that are responsible for the explosions that were heard

No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop such a large falling mass. YOU prove the opposite. I don't have to show that every engineer on the planet is right.

the burden of proof rests on your assumption - "It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop such a large falling mass". it is a fact that only the official hypothesis is being investigated. now here the beauty, if or when the official hypothesis is proven then that will automatically debunk alternative hypothesis but if the official hypothesis cannot be proven then it must be abandoned. so logically we both have an invested interest in any efforts aimed at proving the official hypothesis.

yes we do have to prove that every engineer on the planet is right.

 

[thewholesoul]

I would like to see an experiment which proves that the above quote was not a joke designed to make 9/11 CTists look bad.

may be instead of smart comments you could provide an answer to teh question. what produced the sparks that are purported to have ignited the jet fuel?

by failing to answer this relatively simple question it is you that looks bad, not me.