If I understand you correctly thewholesoul, this bomb explosion of yours now occurred on either B2 or B3. And your only evidence for this is that David Felipe believes that he heard an explosion below him.
wrong.
Rodriguez and said Anthony Saltamachia, and presumably the 14 other occupants in that room would when asked reaffirm that an explosion came from below, somewhere in the mechanical room. these would all corroborate Felipe David's testimony.
several people in the B4 claim the explosion came from above such as Phillip Morelli, Hursley Lever, and Sanchez et cetera. which again further corroborate Felipe Davids testimony. and the testimony of Marlene Cruz seems to suggest that the explosion came from below also.
so yes i would say the bomb went off somewhere in the B2-3 basment. what we dont have unfortunately is any testimony from people in the B2 basement, all we have is testimony from Giambanco
I could see through the cracks we were between B-2 and B-3. We were both screaming and afraid. I remember seeing through the slot of the elevator and seeing other people running and screaming
Giambanco's testimony and the behaviour of people who were actually in B2-3 again reinforces Felipe's testimony.
smoke, burn victims, fireballs, running and screaming are all typical of an undergorund explosion; watch the video of the madrid train bomb and you will
see all the above.
the bottom line is Norseman: i have eliminated through simple logic the possibility that this first explosion could have been caused by a fireball or jet fuel. the bottom line is you are unable to refute the premises upon which i arrived at this conclusion. but still you resist any alternative explanation that easily, easily explains the phenomena described in the basment prior to the arrival of the fireball.
i know it emans absolutely nothing to you that many people that day were convicned it was a bomb. granted that by no means proves it was a bomb but once
we have eliminated any other possibility , and i have in post 329, then bombs must be considered.
Do I have to remind you of
Mike McQuaid and problems of correctly locating the source of a sound inside a building.
Not to belittle Mike McQuaid but he was only
one account. it would be very interesting to have further testimony from that particular floor. The level of corroboration in the basement level is quite another matter.
as i said to Mackey, it is not just a matter of hearing but also "feeling" an explosion. so when people feel the floor vibrating or pushing them upwards it tends to support their claim that the explosion came from below.
but when we take a second look at Mike McQuaids account and take it on face value who is to say that an explosion didn't occur in the mechanical room below him? explosions in the mechanical room were an ongoing theme that day and a detonation below could arguably be more noticable than a deflagration of 2-3psi a few floors above.
but let us even say you are right Norseman. let us assume the explosion felipe heard came from above. how do you propose that refutes my
post 329? that fireball still has to pass car 50 undetected, right? perhaps you may wish to abandon the official explanation like many other sin this forum have already done and endorse the unignited jet fuel explanation, but then you will have to explain how it could arrive before the falling elevator in
less than 10 secs from 90+floor. why dont you go and make that argument?
The account of Felipe David is entirely consistent with the sequence of events caused by Flight 11's impact into the building.
REALLY? seriously my friend how can you still cling onto that belief after reading
post 329? how can you still hold onto that belief when you are unable to refute the premises in
post 329? you know i also debate religious folk and you are diplaying the very same symptoms of denial when faced with simple logic.
post 329 argues that the fireball and jet fuel explanation are
impossible, not improbable, unlikely,
impossible. i am sorry that you find the conclusion of that psot disturbing and troubling but thats not my fault. and to argue that well
maybe there is a chance Felipe was wrong and the explosion he heard came from above is hardly a rebuttal, is it?
this: the plane hit, fireball travelled down elevator shaft, felipe got bunt has be shown to be impossible because car 50 was above felipe when he felt the explosion below. besides: bomb in the basment exploded and burnt felipe is equally consistent.
moreover given the fact that felipe was burnt before the freball arrived to basement i am assuming that you have conceded and ruled out
your previous explanation as falling debris as the cause of his injuries.
And where are all the witnesses describing the damage down on B2 and B3?.
i dont know. i asked the same question once. all we have is giambanco's testmony and screaming and running and such behaviour is entirely consistent with a bomb. furthermroe whatever caused them to behave in such a manner occured before the fireball arrived.
You are making extraordinary claims here thewholesoul, claims that need extraordinary evidence.
no i am not. i am making sober ordinary claims supported by reasoned logic and an objective appraisal of all testimony. even if i had a video camera in the basment that day which showed an explosive detonation you would still deny that there was a bomb in the basement.
as predicted you are either unable ior unwilling to tackle my argument in a logical format e.g. 2a is false because....x, y, z .
the truth is my conclusion follows from my premises and casting
doubt upon the location of a sound (i.e. felipe could be wrong) reiterating your debunked conviction (i.e. the official story is consistent with felipe's injuries)
is hardly a rebuttal. but no disrespect Norseman, i dont expect a rebutall from
anyone in this forum that is why i will be moving onto a new thread shortly.
)
