Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Belz...]

allow me to rephrase - it IS ASSUMED to be true because when such a significant mass falls, it IS ASSUMED that it just doesnt stop.

It's assumed from experience, dummy.

go to journalof911scholars

Well, that sounds like a reasonable, non-biased source!

i heard it somewhere before that on paper bumble bees supposedly cant fly. then i heard it again on a hard fire debate between gravvy and a 911 scholar. the moderator said that it was shown aerodynamically that bumble bees cant fly. so then assuming that the aerodynamics people used calculations to reach their conclusion - i came up wit that statement you asked me to source.

Exactly why you can't trust what you hear.

it is a fact that a progressive and global collapse occured to three steel framed skyscrapers on sept11th due to fire and gravity. that is a fact.

it is also a fact that this phenomena never happen to a steel framed skyscraper before 911 due to fire and gravity.

It never happened to a steel-framed skyscraped designed like the WTC on Manhattan before 9/11. That's hardly evidence for anything.

now the term "progressive collapse" and "global collaspe" may well have been in use long before 911.

but we know for a fact that they were never used in combination with one another before 911 in relation to steel framed skyscrapers.

Aw, come on, Soul. You're getting desperate, here.

- progressive and global collapse is a new phenomena and requires a new theory.

Man, if global collapses were a new phenomena, we wouldn't need building safety codes.

Come on, now. Haven't you even seen a building completely collapse ?

- defenders of the official hypothesis make a (bold) claim that total collapse was inevitable post initial collaspe.

Why is it bold if almost every engineer and demolition expert in the world has no problem with it ?

- the burden of proof rests on those who suggest a new theory and/or state a claim. that is why the burden of proof Belz rests of supporters of the official hypothesis - and also - on advocates of CD hypothesis because they too state a (bold) claim.

No, because it is not a new theory.

q - do you accept that the burden of proof also rests on the official hypothesis?

No, for two reasons:

a.) It is not a hypothesis.
b.) It has already been proven.

q - do you accept that to date the total collapse has not been proven through the scientifc method

No.

thewholesoul challenge - still unanwsered: if you acceot the two premises above what would you still beleive that the official hypothesis is true if they were unable to prove it through experimentation and/or computer modelling?

Since I don't accept your premises, it follows that I don't subscribe to your interpretation.

----

Now, as to the videos.

The first three show footage from the same camera and the same angle. The "explosion" they describe in the first two and the sounds we hear prior to collapse in the third cannot be conclusively identified as explosion sounds. My opinion is that they are far too sudden to represent something that happens that far away. It's most likely wind. You DO know what wind does to mikes, don't you ?

The fourth one is the easiest to deal with. We've seen that very same video WITHOUT the explosion sounds. That means some idiot added the sound later. It speaks volumes about the ability of "truthers" to invent the truth when they even lie to one another.

 

[thewholesoul]

Well it should be or you display an illogical thought process and a non scientific method[/NOTE]

If your saying that the fact, a fact that you yourself agree with, that in the history of steel frame skyscrapers not once – never – has there been a progressive and global collapse due to fire and gravity except for the three “alleged” times on 911 means nothing and is irrelevant – well i guess we will just have to disagree.
Logically – this historical fact – supports the CD hypothesis over the official hypothesis because prior to 911 (apart from earthquakes, missiles or nukes) the only way a steel framed skyscraper exhibted a progressive and global collapse was by controlled demolition. I covered this in my post #1062

Argument by history is not scientific[/NOTE]

I guess i win, hands down, the historical argument.

And by the way history is not irrelevant.

I snipped out the trest of your junk. The above is you, yet again, completely missing the point

The difference was the addition of three skyscrapers on the same day due to fire and gravity to your claim. It adds to the argument by history junk from earlier

Show me where you made that exact claim which you said you would not retract? It does not mention three skyscrapers on the same day. This is a very important and distinct change from earlier your claims. [/NOTE]

The reason i do not sometimes fully comprehend what your saying is because i dont know what your talking about -.your above comments being an example.

Big deal – i added three sfs (steel-framed-skyscrapers) to a claim i will not retract – (i am assuming this is the claim you refer to) that in the history of steel frame skyscrapers not once – never – has there been a progressive and global collapse due to fire and gravity – its true isn’t?

[NOTE] q - do you accept that total collapse has been proven by the scientific method? [/NOTE]

It has been shown using all available data, observations, calculations, physical laws and in peer reviewed papers that total collapse was inevitable. If you disagree you must refute the calculations and papers. It is your burden to refute these not ours to prove what is already proven.[/NOTE]

So your answer to the question is no. That the total collapse has not been proven by the scientific method. Thank you for accepting the truth.

Here is some peer reviewed papers from the observations, calculations, physical laws that say total collapse was not inevitable (among other things). If you disagree you must refute their calculations and papers. It is your burden to refute these.

Gregory H. Urich
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
Analysis of the Mass and Potencial Energy of World Trade Centre Tower 1

Gordon Ross
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf
NIST and Dr.Bazant – a simultaneous failure.

Prof. Terry http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf
Proof that the Thermal and gravitational energy was Insufficient to melt steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Centre on 9/11/01

Dr. Frank Legge
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...eration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf
9-11 – Acceleration study proves explosives demolition.

Gordon Ross
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
Reply to Dr.Greening

Gordon Ross, ME
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
Momentum Transfer Amalysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1

Here is the words of another structural engineerWilliam Rice, P.E
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
“Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist”

prove what is already proven.[/NOTE] – you conceded that total collapse was not proven by the sceintific method. Granted you did not say yes, but your failure to say no was taken as a concession. if you wish to clarify the matter simply give a yes or a no answer to the question. If you do not not clarify the issue i will assume that you do acknowledge the fact that total collapse has not been proven by the scientific method.

Now, if it has not been proven by the scientific method, and we all know your a big fan of science since you consider the historical fact mentioned above as irrelevant precisely because it a historical argument not a scientific one, then how can you say that the total collapse was already proven when we both know that there has been no tests, experimentation, and/or computer modelling all of which represent the scientific method?

If your suggesting, which i think you are, that the calculations somehow prove the global collapse was inevitable then what do you say about the peer reviewed calculations i presented that also, by your standards, prove that global collapse was not inevitable. Like i keep saying, the best way and perhaps the only way to prove which calculations are correct and true is by testing, experimentation and/or computer modelling.

“Does every theory get tested with physical and scale tests?”.[/NOTE]

I am not sure. But if mankind can devise and think of ways to test something as grand as the big bang theory and something as small as in subatomic particles in quantum theory – i would maintain that it is possible to test the total collapse scientifically.

I understand scale models are not feasible, but i hope and expect that computers will evolve sufficiently that one day a computer model can demonstrate the event on 911.

[NOTE]thewholesoul challenge still unanswered: if you answered yes to the above question then would you still believe that the official hypothesis is true if indeed it were finally tested through experimentation and/or computer modelling - but they were unable to prove it? [/NOTE]

You say

I can break the F1 lap record at Monaco on a PC game. I cannot do it in real life. What does this prove? [/NOTE]
You see, you cannot give a straight answer. Evasion noted.

 

[Norseman]

Please use the preview function before you post thewholesoul to check the formatting. Your post is a mess of wrongly formated quotes, not very readable.

 

[thewholesoul]

Please explain to me the difference between "progressive collapse" and "global collapse"[/NOTE]

On this link you will read structural engineers disagree about the definition of progressive collapse. "[NOTE]progressive collapse is a nebulous term"[/NOTE] they say. [NOTE]Any collapse is progressive in that one thing fails, something else fails, and so on."[/NOTE]
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/collapse/csemag_progcollapse.html

on this link the give a clear definition
http://www.gostructural.com/print.asp?id=236
[NOTE] Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of an initial local failure from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it [/NOTE]

on this link they give a definiton of progressive collapse but explain that NIST never clarifies global collapse in relation to total progressive collapse
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/progressive.html”

"[NOTE] Progressive collapse describes a collapse in which an initiating event leads to a disproportionate collapse. This phenomenon is rare, especially in steel-framed buildings. The phenomenon of total progressive collapse is even more rare. In fact, there appears to be no example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building outside of the alleged examples of the Twin Towers and Building

“Despite the absence of a single example of total progressive collapse of a steel-framed building before or after 9/11/01, the alleged phenomenon is the lynchpin of the official explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. As if to obscure this fact, NIST's report on the Twin Towers employs a new term for the phenomenon: global collapse, which it uses multiple times without clarifying its relationship to total progressive collapse, although it also uses the term "progressive collapse" 16 times "[/NOTE]

personally i believe the difference between a progressive collapse and a global collapse is that the former can be the latter but the latter can never be the former.

 

[thewholesoul]

Peer reviewed

Just like the journalfor911truth

Burden of proof is on you pal. They have published their papers for all to refute. Calculations are either wrong or right. Prove they are wrong

You prove the peer reviewed papers of journalsfor911 truth wrong.

Mathematical proofs are not the same thing as experimental proofs. The former being more theoretical.

I have been through the burden of proof argumnet countless times. The burden of proof rests on anybody’s shoulder who is presenting a new theory or stating a claim.
Defenders of the official story are presenting a new theory because progressive global collapse of a steel framed skyscraper is a new phenomena – a fact – i will remind you that you accept. Next is “total collapse was inevitable post inital collapse” a claim?
Of course it is. Therefore teh burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis AND advocates of CD hypothesis. i discussed this “double standard” in my post #1047.

None of those videos show a demolition explosion. I am not foolish but you have been fooled.

Maybe it does not “show” the explosion. but all the videos sure “sound” like an explosion.

Maybe the video footage was too distant for you. Perhaps you should read the following testimony of people who were right there that day....

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”

As for the far distance video. Think about the speed of sound sparky. Oh and then think about the sound you get from wind on mic's. Posting youtube videos is the scientific method now is it? Contradict yourself much?

Posting videos is not proving a hypothesis, sparky. Posting videos is evidence which supports a hypothesis, sparky. Evidence and proof are not teh same thing, sparky.

So the explosions heard on video are wind...hahahaha. it could be someone farting??

If people standing next to the buildings heard HUGE explosions – and cameras pointed at the same building on the same day record what sounds liek explosions. Whats the odds eh, that what is heard on the camera is an explosion, sparky?

 

[thewholesoul]

Please use the preview function before you post thewholesoul to check the formatting. Your post is a mess of wrongly formated quotes, not very readable.

my mistake i apologise. i hate when that happens.

 

[thewholesoul]

Excellent, now you can post your "alternative theory" in the thread I created to expose your lie just for you. Remember when you claimed:

have you really nothing better to do then try and harass me into entering your new thread where i can recieve insults there as well as in here.

You simply just lied, yes? Your claim, back it up. I really want to see the nonsense you'll post that can account for everything seen that day as thoroughly as the 9/11 Commission and the NIST did.:

you know what the word "alternative" means? it can mean "other". now when i said there are two hypothesis
1 -the official hypothesis
2 - alternative hypothesis

there is nothing untrue about that. the CD hypothesis, for example, is an alternative hypothesis in relation to the official hypothesis, is it not? the energy beam hypothesis is an example of yet another alternative hypotheis in relation to the official hypothesis.

But frankly, we all know you're full of excrement.

listen mack, i am never going into your new thread - never. you are an extremely and intentionly rude person.

and if i am full of excrement as you put it, your mouth is like a toilet seat, and we all know where the excrement will go!!

this is the last time i will respond to you. enjoy

 

[beachnut]

the CD hypothesis, for example, is an alternative hypothesis in relation to the official hypothesis, is it not? the energy beam hypothesis is an example of yet another alternative hypotheis in relation to the official hypothesis.

listen mack, i am never going into your new thread - never. you are an extremely and intentionly rude person.

and if i am full of excrement as you put it, your mouth is like a toilet seat, and we all know where the excrement will go!!

this is the last time i will respond to you. enjoy

You have no evidence to back up any of your ideas on 9/11.
You have no evidence to back up the CD hypothesis; it is a fantasy of yours. It is not a hypothesis it is a fantasy!
You have no evidence to back up any of the "peer reviewed" papers you listed in your posts. All those papers are false and wrong on 9/11. I have no one able to rationally support any ideas from any of those papers you posted.

You take all you have to support your ideas on 9/11 and you have zip; why?

your post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3306907&postcount=1102 about this source http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml
"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases. "

Here is a sample of the stuff you posted as your expert stuff! It is so stupid it defies being called stupid, we need a new term for stupid by an order of maginitude. What would that be? Dylanaveried? Jonethermited? Where do you find such dumb stuff to share with us?
How do you do that so effortlessly?

 

[thewholesoul]

Now i stated a fact that no – none - steel framed skyscraper prior to 911 had exhibited total collapse due to fire and gravity.

Belz replied

NONE ? Are you that ignorant ? Sheesh, even TRUTHERS mention the Meridian plaza.

So i went to a truther website and Belz was right TRUTHER did mention Merdian Plaza
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Look what they had to say about that...

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

Now who looks ignorant Belz?

 

[chris lz]

Just read Gravy's Rodriguez paper. Forgive me if answered already, but I'm not sure I'm finding the answer I seek. What is the consensus view here, if any, on how best to explain Rodriguez's explosion-before-impact claim? Faulty memory? Sound travels through metal faster than air/he therefore heard the impact sound twice? Is it simply too speculative to say? Or did I miss the punchline?

Thank you.

 

[Gravy]

Just read Gravy's Rodriguez paper. Forgive me if answered already, but I'm not sure I'm finding the answer I seek. What is the consensus view here, if any, on how best to explain Rodriguez's explosion-before-impact claim? Faulty memory? Sound travels through metal faster than air/he therefore heard the impact sound twice? Is it simply too speculative to say? Or did I miss the punchline?

Thank you.

Hi, chris. We know the explosion in the basement was well after the impact. In the paper I say it's probable that Rodriguez didn't hear the impact, as was the case with several people in upper and lower levels. Other events on the floors above, such as elevators falling, or other shaft explosions, can easily explain the second noise he said he heard. His supervisor, who was with him in the maintenance office, says they didn't know there was an event at the top of the building.

As for why Rodriguez now, years later, claims that explosives were involved, only he can answer that. Unfortunately he doesn't feel the need to answer questions or examine the facts relating to his theories.

 

[chris lz]

Other events on the floors above, such as elevators falling, or other shaft explosions, can easily explain the second noise he said he heard.

Thanks Mark. I just wanted to make sure that fits with the evidence, but I guess it's also common sense. Are there in fact first hand accounts of others stating they heard at least two explosive noises immediately after the impact?

That said, how much weight would you give the "he heard it through steel first" claim? I'm not sure what to think on that one.

Cheers

Chris

 

[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!

i tell you what else is umpossible - i imagine there wasnt just one piece of flamming debris or spark - but magically none of these pieces of flamming debris or sparks ignited the jet fuel until they past 70+ floors of jet fuel. pretty amazing dont you think that this would happen.

and i know you cant provide an explanation and i know all your suggestions are nothing more than unproven speculation.

 

[thewholesoul]

Just read Gravy's Rodriguez paper. Forgive me if answered already, but I'm not sure I'm finding the answer I seek. What is the consensus view here, if any, on how best to explain Rodriguez's explosion-before-impact claim? Faulty memory? Sound travels through metal faster than air/he therefore heard the impact sound twice? Is it simply too speculative to say? Or did I miss the punchline?

Hey chris.

The consensus view in relation to william rodriguez is that

(a) it is highly unlikely that he could have heard the plane impact 90+ floors above. This i agree with because he describes the explosion coming from below and becasue the explosion he experienced below he claims pushed him upwards

(b) the consensus is that the explosion rodriguez claimed to have heard resulted from jet fuel travelling down the elevator shaft, past the elevator car 50, and then eventhough it could have ignited at any point the jet fuel first became ignited and deflagrated at the B2-3 level in both towers (assuming Morelli’s testimony is correct).

(c) as to what ignited the descending fuel all we have is speculation in this room because NIST never conducted a thorough investigation into the explosion in the basement and no tests were carried out to prove any proposed ignition source.

(d) it is a fact that a thermite reaction or incendary devices can ignite jet fuel and no-one in this room has ruled out this as a possibility.

(e) but the key question to grravy that he either ignores, avoids, or is unable to answer is that if the jet fuel “could have ignited and deflagrated at any point” (see gravy #360) when descending down the elevator shaft, how come it first deflagrated at the same area B2-3 in both Towers? not below B2-3 where one would naturally assume the jet fuel to accumulate due to gravity and not above B2-3 because we know that “fireballs did not travel down the elevator shafts from the imapct zone” (see gravy #360).

So tell us all gravy – how could the flammable debris that you speculate was the ignition source of the jet fuel NOT ignite before it reached B2-3 in BOTH towers? Do you have any plausible explanation for this?

but to close chris, as for the second explosion rodriguez heard - i agree with gravy - that it could have been elevators crashing down.

 

[beachnut]

Thank goodness fire departments are not as research challenged as 9/11 truth

Now i stated a fact that no – none - steel framed skyscraper prior to 911 had exhibited total collapse due to fire and gravity.
Belz replied
So i went to a truther website and Belz was right TRUTHER did mention Merdian Plaza
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Look what they had to say about that...
Now who looks ignorant Belz?

What happen to the building? Details please. Where is the building today? Show me the building that did not fail in fire today!

Gee whiz, why do firemen think building can fall due to fire, shallow researcher truth person?

All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors.

I wonder what saved the building besides the fireproofing was not compromised and the air source was limited! What saved the building from collapse?

The fire was stopped when it reached the 30th floor, which was protected by automatic sprinklers.

Oh, the fire was stopped? Where did the Airliner strike this building at 500 mph and deliver 10,000 gallons of fuel? Truth person, where is the big gapping hole letting in tons of air to make the fire more effective?

Where is the building TODAY?

Here is another building fire from your source of woo and where is this building?

The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005.

Oops, building destoryed by fire? And the building was hit by how big a jet, how fast, and how much fuel? Hello?

Oh no, the steel stucture above the fire fell! You said no steel stucture had fallen, it seems all this steel fell like it melted, but gee, it just got hot in a fire with out 10,000 gallons of extra fuel, and it failed fast! Darn, why did the core stand? CONCRETE? Yes. Where is this building today? Why? What caused it?

If you stand for truth, you have to tell me what airline hit this building please? Hurry, your truthy side is showing.

Here is some steel structure that did not fail in WTC5? No, it did fail and look, the shell is standing but the building is gutted by fire? How did this happen? Gee, I think the fire department was spraying WTC6 and 5 as they could get assets to do so. But see the steel frame building failed due to fire? You know they studied the supports and failure modes in WTC5 and 6 due to fire? Do you know anything about 9/11 and fire?
How does fire bend that steel so easy?

Why did they fear failure, it was just a fire and the fireproofing was not dislodged like in the WTC. What made the floors sag, and why do firemen fear the building will fall since you truth people say it can't happen? Oh, because in real life, in reality, buildings do fail in fire. This was One Meridian Plaza, where is it today?

 

[thewholesoul]

Here is a classic Belz:

In relation to the claim that – total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse – i said

Here you are clearly making a “CLAIM”. A claim which has “not been proven” by “experimentation” but rather is assumed to be true.

Belz replied

It's not ASSUMED to be true. When such a significant mass falls, it just doesn't stop.

I then tried to clarify the error he made

allow me to rephrase - it IS ASSUMED to be true because when such a significant mass falls, it IS ASSUMED that it just doesnt stop.

Now instead of realising the obvious error in his reasoning Belz replies

It's assumed from experience, dummy

now from the onset of this brief exchange i was arguing that the claim – total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse – was an unproven assumption.

Belz actually believes that when he concedes to my point that the claim “is assumed” that somehow that refutes my argument? By the way Belz even if the claim is assumed from experience – that does NOT remove the fact that an assumption has been made!!! think about it - please

As i discussed elsewhere in previous posts – to assume that the twin towers and tower 7 totally collapsed based on experience is a complete and utterly absurd assumption. Because never in the history of steel framed skyscrapers has fire and gravity resulted in this observed outcome. In other words, mankind has never experienced prior to the three “alleged” cases on 911 that a steel framed skyscrapers totally collapsed due to fire and gravity.

I always get a good laugh when you think that you are refuting my point when in fact you are agreeing with me. The cherry on the cake is when you insult my intelligence in the process.

 

[thewholesoul]

What happen to the building? Details please. Where is the building today?

hahahahhaha - i claimed that never - not once in history prior to the three "alleged" cases on 911 has a steel framed skyscraper exhibted a total collapse due to fire and gravity and you provide some photos of steel framed buildings that did NOT exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity??

keep up the good work debunking!!!

 

[beachnut]

where is One Meridian Plaza that was on fire? Why?

hahahahhaha - i claimed that never - not once in history prior to the three "alleged" cases on 911 has a steel framed skyscraper exhibted a total collapse due to fire and gravity and you provide some photos of steel framed buildings that did NOT exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity??

keep up the good work debunking!!!

Tell me please where is One Meridian Plaza today? Simple question. The building was not hit by an aircraft, there was not 10,000 gallons of fuel, so where is the building?

Tell me why they stopped fighting the fire?

I assume you have read the technical report

High-rise Office Building Fire
One Meridian Plaza
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania​

and you are ready to tell all why the WTC should not have failed. I also assume you can tell me why you can compare this fire to the WTC fires; how they are the same and different. I think it is funny how you bring this up but the fire department left because of possible collapse, and you compare it to a building where it did collapse. Irony.

Oh, all fires there is a possibility of structural failure and collapse? YES

Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors

So tell me, how many structural engineers have you talked to about WTC failure? Was that none? Yes, you are a researched challenged truther with zero facts, just hearsay talk about buildings that do not exist because they were destroyed by FIRE. Destroyed by fire. Like the WTC many buildings have been destroyed by fire. Did you see those floors sagging 3 feet? Wow, where is One Meridian Plaza today?

 

[Gravy]

Thanks Mark. I just wanted to make sure that fits with the evidence, but I guess it's also common sense. Are there in fact first hand accounts of others stating they heard at least two explosive noises immediately after the impact?

Again, the basement explosion wasn't immediately after impact. That said, many witnesses, including Rodriguez's supervisor, describe multiple events after the impact. It's impossible to know which of these Rodriguez may have heard.

[/quote]That said, how much weight would you give the "he heard it through steel first" claim? I'm not sure what to think on that one.[/quote]That was first posited when Rodriguez was claiming that the second sound "way on top" came 1-2 seconds after the first. However, it doesn't correspond to what others experienced, and would require the existence of another major basement blast long after the one that burned Felipe David.

 

[chris lz]

Gravy,

Got it. Obviously wasn't reading your reply carefully. I'll go back and re-read your essay.


Wholesoul, thanks too for your reply.

(e) but the key question . . . is that if the jet fuel “could have ignited and deflagrated at any point” (see gravy #360) when descending down the elevator shaft, how come it first deflagrated at the same area B2-3 in both Towers? not below B2-3 where one would naturally assume the jet fuel to accumulate due to gravity and not above B2-3 because we know that “fireballs did not travel down the elevator shafts from the imapct zone” (see gravy #360).

Being new to this argument, I'd need to hear it spelled out in greater depth to judge it. Why is it a "key" question?