Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[funk de fino]

look you can call me a liar if that pleases you, i will be presenting an argument for the use and evidence of thermite at wtc. Of course if there is evidence of thermite that would support all testimony who claimed to have heard explosions. Your welcome to debate – but calling me a lar and steven jones a liar only demonstrates how receptive or rather unreceptive you are going to be to my argumnets.

Jones is a liar

Look you teach this stuff. But you dont have to be a teacher to posses common sense. There are two options because the machines werent inside the elevator shaft that means that (A) the descending jet fuel entered the machine room and became ignited from the sparks etc, or (B) the sparks entered the elevator room being ejected from the machines.

No, there are many more options

Either way, you will agree, we have to have contact between the sparks and the jet fuel. Of the two possibilities the former seems more plausible

No the ignition source has to contact the explosive atmsophere not the jet fuel itself. Do you understand this? The ignition source does not have to physically touch the jet fuel.

I was only parrating off what i heard on their documentary.

This exposes your lack of common sense and research capabilities

If however the elevator shaft is airtight then that does not mean that the elevators could not move up and down. Cables were responsible for pulling the elevator up and down.

Yes it does. If they are airtight there is nowhere for the air to move to when the elevator moves up and down. Try this experient. Get a hypodermic syringe, make sure there is no needle. Now block off the end with your thumb and then try to depress the plunger. What happens?

The occupants having nothing to breathe is a much stronger argumnet. Which completely refutes the notion that the elevator shafts were airtight.

Not stronger or better just common sense. If you think elevator shafts are airtight you have no commonsense. If this is because you saw it on a DVD, then you are using argument by gullibilty. In both cases you fail.

i have already achieved my goal despite my lack of knowledge in the subject area.

Its helps to know what you are talking about before you use what you think you know to accuse people of murder.

So when defenders of the official hypothesis claim that the jet fuel was ignited by x, y, or z – they are really only speculating. I think it is important that people in this room recognise the difference between speculation and known proven facts.

yes, the evidence is there to support a multitude of ignition sources. there is none to support your thermite fantasy

Moreover, because we know that a thermite reaction or incendary devices can cause fuel to ignite we can not rule this possibility out. Not one person in this room argued against the fact that thermite reaction or incendary devices can serve as an ignition source for jet fuel.

We rule it out as implausible due to lack of evidence. And stop it with the "in this room" crap. This is not My Cousin Vinnie

We will determine how implausible it is when we discuss the evidence for thermite.

You have cast iron evidence for thermite but more than six years after the attacks and you have done what? I do hope your evidence is not Jones the liar?

Again you provided no sound reason why experimentation could not be carried out.

Some of the experimentation is unfeasible. Most is not required. I have tried to show you this and you fail to understand.

I agree that switches can and do cause ignition. But the position of those switches relative to descending fuel is relevant. Where they exposed or not? The kind of switches is also relevant – you say the ones in the towers did not have special safeguards – where is your source for that claim? If indeed the light switches were the cause then one would expect that the fuel would have deflagrated all the way down the elevator shaft because light switches i assume would have been positioned all the way the elevator shaft. But this did not happen – which brings into doubt that the light switches were the cause.

Switches which operate in explosive atmospheres are special ones. Switches used in houses and office buildings are not special switches. They are normal switches. Normal switches produce sparks when operated. Relays produce sparks when operated. This is why in locations I design systems for I need to use special switches and realys to prevent these sparks.

Experimentation is not a fantazy – you simply lack imagination. For example, to repeat, NIST tested how a jet liner could remove the fireproofing paint from the steel columns on 8 separate floors. How did they do that? They placed fireproofing in a wooden box and shot it with a shotgun!!!!
So this argument, mentioned previously as well

Not all experiments are fantasy. Ones that are unfeasible or not required are

Should obviously apply to NIST as well. In fact i bet you would suspend all critcial thinking and even claim that there was nothing wrong with their test. So the fact that you do not apply the same standards for experimentation on NIST as you do my humble suggestions simply means that you apply double standards my friend.

I think if you read back through all your posts it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. I am not commenting on NIST tests, you are. You are assuming you know what I think about NISTS tests and also my thoughts on NIST in general. I cannot have double standards if you do not know my first standard

Heres is what you did say about the NIST experimentation
I know you are not judging NIST that is because you are suspending your critical thinking and applying it solely to suggestions i made concerning experimentation. I agree they are better at what they do but i would have one or two objections to their shotgun experiment – dont you??? Why do hold such reverance to authority? are NIST somehow beyond criticism – even judgment – in your mind?

You tell me that i just have to deal with it – i am dealing with it, i am applying critical thinking to their experimentations and their lack of experimentations. The way you deal with NIST is through passivity, by suspending your crtical judgement and applying it soley to me for suggesting that experiments could be performed.

see above. you are not applying critical thinking at all.

Ok we are going to have to disagree on that one. In my opinion if i, or a relative or friend of mine was burnt or injured from the explosion in the basement, and if i and many others thought it was a bomb that caused the explosion – i personally would want to know exactly, definitively, what was the cause. And I would want at the very least an investigation into the causes of the explosion in the basement not just speculation backed up by more specualtion which i have established is all we seem to be doing.

this is not critical thinking. you want to know exactly what is was right down to exactly which switch caused the explosive atmnosphere to ignite. this is not real world thinking either.

In an elevator shaft i think we could reduce or limit the causes down from literally thousands. Falling debris, lighting, and/or incendary devices seem to be the front runners.

Incendiary devices are not even at the races pal.

Having been on their website i found nothing. So i tell you what, you tell me what they said an i will tell you whether i agree with it or not.

lack of research skills again

www.911blogger.com/node/13149
you asked if i agreed with everything the NSTB and FAA reported about 911. i thought it would be relevant to establish that fact the FAA do not publicise all their information about 911 which renders it an impossibility to make an informed decision on whether i happen to agree with their information or not.

The FAA say that those four airliners were destroyed that day due to the terrorist attacks. Do you believe them?

So if scaling is not an obstacle why did you say this

Yet again misunderstanding on your part.

Like i said the position and exposure is relevant. The kind of light is relevant. And could be tested. Given that some people swear that the explosion in the basement was a bomb i think it would be nice to settle this issue. Like i said if it was the lighting in the sahft that cuased the jet fuel to ignite then common sense tells us that ignition would have occured long before the jet fuel reach the basement – but this did not happen. You comment below only supports my suspicions

It did not have to happen in the elevator shaft. Even if it did, it may also have occured in the basement.

All of your possible ignition sources and the more you provide only make it more incredible that the jet fuel could have reached the basement without igniting and explosing into a fireball beforehand.

You are forgetting the LEL and UEL again. You have the have the three things for the fire remember. If we have all the correct ignition sources in the shaft. What could be missing from the equation?

Of course 911 is not a joke – and you know damn well that i never said it was!

What was so funny then, that you had to mention it in the same thread you are accusing people of murder?

Someone in this room, we all know who, openly stated that he is willing to “disrespect” people who lost family members on 911 because he “disagrees” with them. Why dont you apply your moral standards to that person where it belongs. I never said 911 was a joke – and you god damn know that sir!

Cousin Vinnie again. It makes you look foolish and childish.

This is a ridiculous and pointless question.

No. it is not. I am trying to shopw you something about critical thinking yet you fail to see this.

In order to determine what was the cause of the jet fuel in the basement of the wtc we dont say well in a house with no previous histroy of terrorist attacks where gas explosions and normally the result of electrical ignition sources means that the explosion in the basement was also most likely caused by the same ignition source.

I never said that. I am asking you questions so that we can look at your answers and see what critical thinking really is. You are avoiding answering the question so we can move on no further.

to answer the question however the ignition source in the house example could have been a variety of possible to probable causes - including thermite reaction if it was an arson attack. Without an investigation it is impossible to prove anything

Have you any proof of anyone ever using thermite for an arson attack?

You are correct however, the ignition source could have been quite a few things. I am asking you to tell me what you think the most likely would be? An assumption based on common sense if you like.

It is a hypothetical question. But i would say in the majority of gas explosions in a house an electrical source would be the culprit for ignition.

What would be the source of this electrical spark for ignition? Using common sense?

But if your saying categorically that the explosion in the basement of wtc was caused by lighting – then why do you continue to resist any suggestion of experimentation that would prove your assumption true?? It makes no sense at all.

I am not categorically saying anything of the sort. I am saying there are a multitude of possible ingition sources for the fuel. All of which we know were present. I am saying it is impossible and unecessary to experiment to show the exact source of this ignition. Everyone know that voltages in offices and homes have enough energy to cause an explosion in an explosive atmsophere. We do not have to experiment this any more.

If you claim it is thermite then you have to prove thermite was present. Who put it there. Where it was. How it was set off. For what reason.

Burden of proof again. You have this all wrong. I do not have to argue about all the possible sources of ignition because we know they were all there and all capable. If you think thermite should be added to the list then you have to prove it was there.

 

[funk de fino]

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

I ignored your 0post # 1102 because it was a car wreck and did not make sense. It was full of you saying I agreed with something when I did not and you accusing me of avoiding questions when you in fact did exactly the same.

I note above you quote 911 truth site

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]

Now a quote from a real site, good you are learning

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]

Oh no, back to quoting 911 truth sites again

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.

Now this is all you had to do. Give me your own words and theory. Why did you feel the need to quote truther sites. Why not just go straight to engineering sites?

http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20presentations/HallSohn%20Paper.pdf

Though the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in New York on September 11, 2001 still requires detailed study, it is clear that the global collapse was initiated by local damage (i.e., immediate damage from the aircraft impacts, enhanced by high temperature effects due to fires) [2]. This fits very well with the definition of progressive collapse.
The most significant difference between progressive collapse and global collapse is the initiation by relatively localized damage, and an evolution time to the global collapse. These two characteristics of a localized damage initiation and a delay time (if the global collapse cannot be avoided) may enable one to control the type and range of progressive collapse to minimize the extent of final damage.

http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/freePubs/Blast_Symposium_Proceedings.pdf

A progressive collapse is when localised failure or damage leads to a collapse of a significant amount or indeed all of the structure. It is a disproportionate amount of damage for the initial amount of damage

A progressive collpase can progress into a global collapse

Global collapse can be the product of a progressive collapse

You may have a progressive collpase which does not manifest into a global collapse.

Do you agree?

 

[funk de fino]

Just like the journalfor911truth

You mean the JONES? They are not correctly peer reviewed and you know it.

If it is this site you mention then do you agree with this statement from the site

Watch building 7's collapse in 6.5 seconds. This 47-story steel building wasn't hit by a plane. Do you think explosives were used?

accurate statement?

You prove the peer reviewed papers of journalsfor911 truth wrong.

They are not peer reviewed and if they were then the statement above is wrong therefore the site is wrong

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

The calculations are either correct or they are not. If you think that total collapse is not possible then you have to disprove the calculations in the peer reviewed papers. They are peer reviewed, they are accepted, if you disagree you refute them.

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.

Progressive collapse of buildings is not a new theory

Global collapse of buildings is not a new theory

Fire weakening steel is not a new theory

Office fires burning at very high temps is not a new theory

Aircraft flying a high speeds into other objects causing huge damages is not a new theory

You claiming that thermite or explosives brought down these towers is a new theory. You provide the proof. You do not even have any evidence never mind proof.

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....

They do not sound like demolition explosions. You show me one video of the tower that has demolition type explosions on it.

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”

Bolded above - there is your problem. now there were hundreds of cameras on the towers that day. show me one with demolition type sounds on it

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?

You have neither evidence or proof of demolition or bombs or thermite

as for the speed of sound remark i made why did you ignore it

how long do you think it would tale for the "explosion noise" to travel that far?

in the end it does not matter because you, mr critical thinker, posted a faked video

you were fooled by this, you are being fooled by it all

please go to www.implosionworld.com and look in the cinema explosif section with your sound turned up and then come back here and tell me the difference between 911 and those videos

 

[Belz...]

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?

You, actually. Read about WHICH parts of the building collapsed.

 

[Belz...]

Here is a classic Belz:

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



Belz replied

I then tried to clarify the error he made


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


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.

Soul, instead of playing a points game in which you adress a non-existant fan base, perhaps you should try to understand the things I said.

Including NOT ignoring my OTHER points.

Do you deny that structures collapse completely ? Why does it have to be a similar structure, now ?

 

[twinstead]

You, actually. Read about WHICH parts of the building collapsed.

Maybe you need to give him a clue?

 

[Belz...]

A clue ? Truthers need to GET a clue.

 

[thewholesoul]

Hey belz – below is your comments in chronalogical order in relation to whether the official hypothesis has been proven according to the scientific method. Your repsonses are a model of inconsistency.

i said - obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven.

That's only if you can show that, once the collapse was initiated, it could be stopped.

#1: why do i have to prove the claim made within the official hypothesis? the burden of proof rests on all advocates of unproven hypotheses. Finally, if i am explaining to you the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven and you answer that i should prove that - once collapse initiated that it could be stopped – you are not denying therefore that the official hypothesis remains unproven.

i said - so total collapse was proven?

Go to Manhattan. Look for the towers

#2: absurd answer. because the towers totally collapsed does not prove by tests, experimentation and/or computer modelling what caused the total collapse.

i said - 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.

#3: because the official hypothesis is more widely accepted does not in itself constitute proof according to the scentific method. You yourself agreed that acceptance does not mean that a hypothesis is proven

When most professionals in a given field accept a given theory, it's not like an argument from popularity. It may not be proof that something is true, but it's sure better than a popular poll.

Here you acknowledge that widely accepted may not = that something is proven. This is correct. Only when what is widely accepted is proven by tests, experimentation, and/or computer modelling will the truth of what is widely accpeted be scientifically established and validated.

i said - Let me explain to you again the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven. the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested.

Of course it's been tested. Two airliners crashed into the WTC towers on 9/11. They collapsed.

#4: obviously your confusing the observed phenomena with experimentation.

i said - Now as soon as you can tell me which large or partial models and/or computer models were used to test the total collapse of the twin towers – please let me know.

Again, you ignore what I've said more than once: once the collapse was initiated, we all agree that it could not be stopped because the forces involved were overwhelming

#5: avoiding the issue. The truth is you cannot provide one example when the total collapse of the twin towers was tested according to the scientific method. Instead of admitting that your wrong you return to an assumption i have discussed in previous posts. The very assumption, i might add, that needs to be proven thorugh tests, experimentation, and/or computer models.

i said - So do you beleive the official hypotehsis is proven?

I believe it is the most rational explanation that takes all data into consideration.

#6: a hypothesis is a rational explanation for a given phenomena see definition no.4 above dictionary.com. but my point is that the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method.

i said - The only logical way you can maintain your position and statement – the only logical way – is if you can provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse has been tested. merely saying, claiming and assuming that it is inevitable DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOU.

You mean to say that nothing has ever collapsed? There are enough examples of building collapses to show what fires can do to a building and what happens when collapse begins. The fact that no skyscraper even close to the size of the WTC collapsed, especially in those conditions, before 9/11 is only an indication that it never happened before, not one that it couldn't. .

The reason why I stand by my statement is that experience teaches us that when things collapse, bad things happen.

We KNOW that fire destroys buildings, because it happens

#7: first thing to notice here is that that Belz fails to provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse of the wtc was tested. that was the only logical way he could have maintained his stated position that – the official hypothesis has been proven by the scientific method. Instead he argues that (i) because buildings collapse, (ii) because we have experience that buildings collapse, and (iii) because we know fire destroys buildings - that somehow that constitutes PROOF BY EXPERIMENTATION that the three skyscrapers on 911 totally collapsed due to fire and gravity. Of course it does not. He acknowledges the fact that total collapse due to fire and gravity has never happened before to a skyscraper and claims that this fact does not mean that it could not have happened before to a skyscraper – i accept his point. However that does not prove that total collapse happened as the official hypothesis proposes, and given that it was “allegedly” the FIRST TIME it did happen from fire and gravity this should be proven ture conclusively since from experience total collapse of skyscrapers has predominently occured due to controlled demolition.

Next Belz suggests that totoal collapse has been proven because

We also know that, considering the sheer mass of 30+ floors of a building the size of the WTC towers, once collapse begins, the kinetic forces involved are far too great for a single floor to handle, and we KNOW that it would only affect each floor separatly while crashing down. Where's the problem ?

The problem is that none of these assumptions have been proven by the scientific method. In my post #1102 you will find several scholars who present peer reviewed papers that assert that they know the buildings would not have totally collapsed post intial collapse. Some even dispute the initial collapse would have occured.

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

No

Ok belz this is the last respeonse i am sending you on this particular issue. If you believe that the total collapse has been proven through the scientific method – and if what your saying is true – then i am positive you can present just one of the actual tests, experiments, and/or compuer modelling of the total collaspe of the twin towers.

So its either put up or shut up!

 

[thewholesoul]

Soul, instead of playing a points game in which you adress a non-existant fan base, perhaps you should try to understand the things I said.

who wants fans?

if this was a points game between me and you i think i would be winning.

Including NOT ignoring my OTHER points.

i will answer, or at least try to answer, any question you bring to the table - provided its on topic. what OTHER points. list them in a rational order, tell me which post# i can find them - PRESENT THEM clearly and categorically and i will respond to them one at a time.

Do you deny that structures collapse completely ? Why does it have to be a similar structure, now ?

of course i did not deny nor would i ever deny that structures collapse completely - to suggest otherwise is absurd.

the reason i rightly emphasis steel framed skyscrapers is because never in the history of such structures has fire and gravity resulted in a total collapse apart from the three "alleged" cases on 911.

although tower 1+2+7 were all steel framed skyscrapers, tower 7 exhibited a different steel frame structure than tower 1+2

 

[Dave Rogers]

the reason i rightly emphasis steel framed skyscrapers is because never in the history of such structures has fire and gravity resulted in a total collapse apart from the three "alleged" cases on 911.

Fire, gravity and being hit by (a) a jet plane, (b) a jet plane, and (c) large chunks of WTC1. Just in case you'd forgotten that minor point.

And never in the history of such structures has any suffered such a large fire as WTC7 totally unfought, or fires that spread so rapidly over such a large area due to the presence of jet fuel in WTC1 and 2. Unprecedented circumstances produced unprecedented results.

And don't forget the Kader toy factory.

Dave

 

[thewholesoul]

hey chris

(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?

firstly, it is my personal belief that it is a key question.

secondly, without proof of any proposed explanation- we are only speculating as to what is the most plausible explanation in relation to what caused the explosion in the basement. fuel deflagration caused by flamming debris is hardly plausible if it is not possible that the flamming debris could have reached 90 floors below without igniting the jet fuel into a fireball first.

third, but maybe i am overly sceptical and you could provide a rational explanation as to how the flamming debris did not ignite the jet fuel into a fireball before it reached 90 floors below.

fourth, it is key because if flamming debris or lighting within the elevator shaft were not the ignition source of the jet fuel - derived and assumed from the fact that the jet fuel did not deflagrate prior to reaching the basement despite being in contact with flamming debris and lighting then - maybe something else was the cause of the explosion in the basement i.e. that we require a new and more plausible explanation

thats my penny's worth anyhow.

 

[Belz...]

#3: because the official hypothesis is more widely accepted does not in itself constitute proof according to the scentific method.

Soul, I think you're confusing what I'm saying with what you want me to say. I said that it's acceptance amongst experts makes it the DEFAULT theory. YOU are challenging it, YOU must bear the burden of proof.

#4: obviously your confusing the observed phenomena with experimentation.

No, experimentation IS an observed phenomena. Haven't you ever seen a building collapse ?

#5: avoiding the issue. The truth is you cannot provide one example when the total collapse of the twin towers was tested according to the scientific method.

Actually, the truth is that I told you it was unnecessary.

#6: a hypothesis is a rational explanation for a given phenomena see definition no.4 above dictionary.com. but my point is that the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method.

You keep fighting that strawman, but it's a little worn out. Please educate yourself as to how collapses work and what kinetic energy is. Only an ignoramus would think that a single floor's worth of columns could stop a falling mass of 30+ stories.

#7: first thing to notice here is that that Belz fails to provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse of the wtc was tested.

Also notice that he doesn't need to. Soul, you're talking to your mythical audience, again.

The problem is that none of these assumptions have been proven by the scientific method.

Please demonstrate the the Earth is spherical, Soul.

Ok belz this is the last respeonse i am sending you on this particular issue. If you believe that the total collapse has been proven through the scientific method – and if what your saying is true – then i am positive you can present just one of the actual tests, experiments, and/or compuer modelling of the total collaspe of the twin towers.

So its either put up or shut up!

What part of "doesn't need to" don't you understand ?

who wants fans?

if this was a points game between me and you i think i would be winning.

Thank you for making my point.

You are unable to show that your hypothesis is true about the collapse of the towers. Case closed.

of course i did not deny nor would i ever deny that structures collapse completely - to suggest otherwise is absurd.

the reason i rightly emphasis steel framed skyscrapers is because never in the history of such structures has fire and gravity resulted in a total collapse apart from the three "alleged" cases on 911.

Non sequitur.

 

[Belz...]

Soul, are you going to adress my reply concerning the videos you linked to ?

 

[Belz...]

And, Soul. Perhaps you can give me the solution to the question of why I don't think my tax dollars contribute to the development of nuclear weapons ?

 

[thewholesoul]

I said

I agree that switches can and do cause ignition. But the position of those switches relative to descending fuel is relevant. Where they exposed or not? The kind of switches is also relevant – you say the ones in the towers did not have special safeguards – where is your source for that claim? If indeed the light switches were the cause then one would expect that the fuel would have deflagrated all the way down the elevator shaft because light switches i assume would have been positioned all the way the elevator shaft. But this did not happen – which brings into doubt that the light switches were the cause.

Switches which operate in explosive atmospheres are special ones. Switches used in houses and office buildings are not special switches. They are normal switches. Normal switches produce sparks when operated. Relays produce sparks when operated. This is why in locations I design systems for I need to use special switches and realys to prevent these sparks.

So what was your source? How do you know for certain what kind of switiches were actually inside the elevator shaft of the twin towers? How do you know for certain that they were positioned inside the elevator shaft and that they were located in an exposed position relative to the descending jet fuel? Your claiming that you know that the switches in the towers did not have special safeguards – ok source that claim please instead of "describing" your occuaption.

Another point you ignore is this – using your common sense, and expertise in light switches – explain to me how the flammable jet fuel travelled down 90+floors without igniting into a fireball. If indeed the light switches were the cause and were alined all the way down the elevator shaft then surely the jet fuel would have deflagrated before it reached B2-3 because it must have been in contact with many many “non-special” light switches??

Imagine a house 10 storeys high and each floor had several non-special light switches. Unfortunately and by accident there was a gas leak on the 10th floor. However eventhough each floor had several non-special light switches the gas travelled all the way down to the ground floor and despite having come into contact with many non special light switches it suddenly explodes when it reached the basement floor.
I look forward to your response on that one.

I said

Like i said if it was the lighting in the shaft that caused the jet fuel to ignite then common sense tells us that ignition would have occured long before the jet fuel reached the basement

It did not have to happen in the elevator shaft. Even if it did, it may also have occured in the basement.

Nice dodge. The point was how did it gets past all the present and capable ignition sources before it reached the basement?

I said

All of your possible ignition sources and the more you provide only make it more incredible that the jet fuel could have reached the basement without igniting and explosing into a fireball beforehand.

You are forgetting the LEL and UEL again. You have the three things for the fire remember. If we have all the correct ignition sources in the shaft. What could be missing from the equation?

Common sense.

I am not forgeting the LEL and UEL. If the entire shaft possessed an explosive atmosphere and that explosive atmosphere was progressing downwards then one would expect that the explosive atmosphere would have exploded into a fireball before it reached the basement after it past and came into contact with numerous ignition sources.

But i am going to drive this question home. Here are some of the relevant quotes.

I am saying there are a multitude of possible ingition sources for the fuel. All of which we know were present .
I do not have to argue about all the possible sources of ignition because we know they were all there and all capable

thewholesoul, you seem to be under the impression that fireballs traveled down the elevator shafts from the impact zones. None of us make that claim, nor does NIST or anyone else.

Fuel poured down the shafts. It could have ignited and deflagrated at any point

LEL = Lower Explosive Limit UEL = Upper Explosive Limit
between these levels you have an explosive atmosphere that could be ignited with heat or spark

Ok – your the expert and the teacher on this subject. Now imagine i am one of your students.

I ask you, excuse me sir, but how did the jet fuel not ignite into a fireball before it reached B2-3 in both towers? It seems strange to me given that the elevator shafts were the only way the jet fuel had access to the basement, given that all the ignition sources where present within the elevator shaft, given they were all capable, and given there was an explosive atmosphere progressing downwards through the elevator– then how is it possible that the jet fuel did not deflagrate sooner? Everybody knows – even NIST - that a fireball did not travel down the elevator shaft from the impact zone?

would you sent me out of your classroom for that question?

Common sense experiments:
if you had a stream of jet fuel running along the road from point A to point B and you had a portable ignition source (flamming torch, a short cicuiting wire, etc) and you exposed the jet fuel to the ignition source starting at point A moving towards point B. I would expect that the jet fuel would ignite at point A, and that the probabilty of reaching point B would decrease as soon as one left point A.

The same logic applies to jet fuel flowing downwards through a tunnel, funnel, or elevator.

Jet fuel vapour experiment:
if you left the gas on at home, and when you entered the room and switched on the lights i would expect that the explosive atmosphere would ignite at the source of ignition .

If you had the same room full of gas, and instead of switching on a stationary light switch you flicked a match across the room. Will the match ignite at the moment of contact? will it travel half way across the room before ignition? or will it reach the far end of the room before it ignites the explosive atmosphere?

If you have an elevator shaft 100 metres and an explosive atmosphere was travelling downwards from point A to point B while contacting "non-special" light switches every 10 metres along the way. Would you expect the explosive atmosphere to ignite at the first light switch, the 2nd and so forth. Or would you expect the explosive atmosphere to reach the 10th switch before it ignited?

Try the same experiment as above except throw a flamming torch and debris into the explosive atmosphere and observe if the mixture can reach point B before deflagrating.

I am saying it is impossible and unecessary to experiment to show the exact source of this ignition

I am saying that experiments are always possible with enough imagination and resources.

I agree it is not necessary that we discover the exact source of ignition – but i am saying that experiments could be performed to prove how an explosive atmosphere in contact with multiple and capable ignition sources can pass over these multiple ignition sources from point A to point B without exploding. I contend itsumpossible !!

Thats a strong claim. Now if indeed it is impossible and cannot be proven by experimentation then we return to the question – what caused the “explosion” in the basement? An explosion some witnesses who were actually there in the basement that day, claimed was a bomb!!

 

[thewholesoul]

Soul, are you going to adress my reply concerning the videos you linked to ?

will do amigo.

 

[thewholesoul]

A progressive collapse is when localised failure or damage leads to a collapse of a significant amount or indeed all of the structure. It is a disproportionate amount of damage for the initial amount of damage

A progressive collpase can progress into a global collapse

Global collapse can be the product of a progressive collapse

You may have a progressive collpase which does not manifest into a global collapse.

Do you agree?

agreed.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, Soul. Here's the solution to the burning question which you are unable to answer: I'm Canadian.

Thank you for playing. You fail.

 

[thewholesoul]

They are not correctly peer reviewed and you know it.

Look if want to degenerate the debate into jones is a liar and 911 peer reviewed papers are not peer reviewed – fine.
But i disagree with you with sugar on top.

Peer review is a process of subjecting the author’s scholarly work, research or idea to the scrutiny ot others who are experts in the same field.

Wikipedia
Besides on what authority, may i ask, do you claim that their papers are not peer reviewed?

They are not peer reviewed and if they were then the statement above is wrong therefore the site is wrong

Yes they were peer reviewed which means the statement above was correct and the site was telling the truth.

The calculations are either correct or they are not. If you think that total collapse is not possible then you have to disprove the calculations in the peer reviewed papers. They are peer reviewed, they are accepted, if you disagree you refute them.

You see your tactic. You say the peer reviewed papers of 911 scholars are not peer reviewed. Then you call the scholars liars. Then you pull out calculations supposting the official hypothesis and claim i have to refute these fine gentlemen who are not liars and have presented peer review papers. Give me a break.
The truth is mathematical calculations on a page are not the same thing as an actual experiment – why – because the former are theoretical by nature.
That is why i suggest the best way and perhaps the only way to prove whose calculations are right is through testing, experimentation, and/or computer modelling.
So you can drop waving your calculations supporting the official hypothesis as if to say they the official hypothesis is thereby proven by the scientific method.
I said

Originally Posted by TWS
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.

Progressive collapse of buildings is not a new theory

Global collapse of buildings is not a new theory

Fire weakening steel is not a new theory

Office fires burning at very high temps is not a new theory

Aircraft flying a high speeds into other objects causing huge damages is not a new theory

You claiming that thermite or explosives brought down these towers is a new theory. You provide the proof. You do not even have any evidence never mind proof.

You completely IGNORED the other half – how conveniant. Lets just repeat it then shall we.
Is - “total collapse was inevitable post inital collapse” - A CLAIM?
Is - “total collapse resulted from fire and gravity” – A CLAIM?
The above claims have to date not been tested. thats a fact you can accept or not. Based on this fact i can claim, confidently, that the official hypothesis has not been proven by the scientific method – and i defy anyone in this forum to produce any test, experiment, and/or computer model that proves TOTAL COLLAPSE of the twin towers was caused by fire and gravity.
So that the “stating a claim” covered, as for the “new theory”.
Controlled demolition of a steel framed skyscraper is NOT A NEW THEORY OR PHENOMENA – thats a fact you accept or not.
Total collapse of a steel framed skyscraper IS A NEW PHENOMENA – thats another fact you already accepted
Now when you have a new phenomena your are going to need a new theory, or hypothesis to explain that phenomena. Do you agree?
Or perhaps you can provide an example of one new phenomena that did not require a new theory or hypothesis.
Like i said before – the official hypothesis remains unproven – and the burden of proof my friend rests on anyone proposing a new theory or stating a claim. That means that advocates of CD hypothesis AND advocates of the official hypotehsis have the burden of proof.
I will concede however in light of another post you sent that may be i was wrong to say that progressive and global collapse was invented terminology. I would sure like if NIST provided their definition of a “global collapse” given that use the term often enough.

They do not sound like demolition explosions. You show me one video of the tower that has demolition type explosions on it

What is controlled demoltion – it is basically when explosives or incendary devices are used to to cut the vertical support structure so a global collapse can occur.
Now perhaps the explosions did not sound like “conventional” demolition explosives that you are familiar with. That is not to say that explosives or secondary devices did not produce the explosions heard by witnessess there that day.
I said

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”

Bolded above - there is your problem. now there were hundreds of cameras on the towers that day. show me one with demolition type sounds on it

Ok so they “thought” they heard and saw explosives like in a demolition. But you “know” that it was not explosives. so tell me what did they “actually” hear and see. Or are you going to provide some more speculation?

as for the speed of sound remark i made why did you ignore it

I apologise.
I would prefer if you presented your case. Explain why you think the speed of sound removes the possibility that the sound of explosions were recorded.

how long do you think it would take for the "explosion noise" to travel that far?

not faster than the speed of sound.

 

[thewholesoul]

Okay, Soul. Here's the solution to the burning question which you are unable to answer: I'm Canadian.

Thank you for playing. You fail.

hahahahahahah - i knew you were a fellow gringo. hey listen you score a half-a-point for that victory.

if the reason that YOUR taxes could finance investiagtions in america is because you are from canada you win. enjoy it while it lasts my firend.