Does anyone else back up William Rodriguez's story?

[beachnut]

Although I appreciate your statement, please don't give me anything. I'm asking you what it would take to convince you that an explosive device was used in the sublevels of the North Tower: Sublevels absent empirical evidence that would have been destroyed in the collapse?

Wrong again

 

[kookbreaker]

One, there is no need to get upset.
Two, lets rid state that nothing is impossible and get that detraction out of the way.

What post were you replying to?

You may want to read how kerosene vapor is formed.

This is something special in your world? Leave kerosene out and you will get kerosene vapors. Spill it and you get vapors. Geez.

Also, you may want to catch the entire thread's comments.

I have. You were claiming earlier that Kerosene smoke is not white.

 

[gumboot]

My question still stands which none have answered:
What would it take to convince you an explosive device was used in the basement?

Your question has been answered repeatedly.

But for your benefit, I'll give you the short answer.

Evidence.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

One, there is no need to get upset.
Two, lets rid state that nothing is impossible and get that detraction out of the way. You may want to read how kerosene vapor is formed.
Also, you may want to catch the entire thread's comments.

I'm sorry, did you just say nothing was impossible?

-Gumboot

 

[Swing Dangler]

What post were you replying to?

Yours.

This is something special in your world? Leave kerosene out and you will get kerosene vapors. Spill it and you get vapors. Geez.
What colors are the vapor?

Something special in my world? Now, now lets not attack the person as the moderators have asked, but instead attack the arguement. See you have missed part of the discussion. You need to read Gravy's source on white smoke in relation to kerosene.

Gumbot

-Empirical evidence? I can't provide any of that as if there were it was destroyed in the collapse. However, if empirical evidence is your response, why then do you accept a fireball without empirical evidence?

 

[qarnos]

-Empirical evidence? I can't provide any of that as if there were it was destroyed in the collapse. However, if empirical evidence is your response, why then do you accept a fireball without empirical evidence?

A fireball is the simplest explanation for all the observed facts, requiring the fewest assumptions.

 

[LashL]

The source used in the paper does not confirm that. And I'm sure you will provide the source that will confirm this so I can retract my statement.

Yes, just as soon as you read for comprehension what Alt+F4 said and understand how the sources provided do, in fact, confirm what Alt+F4 said.

The source that you use in regards to the security operations is not empirical evidence. It is a survey. I'm asking for empirical evidence.

No, the sources (plural) that I provided are not "a survey" but are further evidence of the measures that were undertaken after the 1993 bombing at the WTC. Once you have completed step 1 above (reading for comprehension and understanding what you have mischaracterized about Alt+F4's prior post), then you should complete step 2 and read the sources Alt+F4 posted and the additional ones that I posted.

Only then will you be ready to discuss further. You have to understand the basics first, and so far, it appears that you are missing the basics.

 

[gumboot]

-Empirical evidence? I can't provide any of that as if there were it was destroyed in the collapse. However, if empirical evidence is your response, why then do you accept a fireball without empirical evidence?

Did you see me use the word "empirical"?

There is not, and cannot be empirical evidence for the WTC collapses. To produce it, you would have to rebuild the entire towers, load them with sensors and cameras, and ram fuel-laden airliners into them. Something I have already pointed out to you.

The reality is you have no evidence whatsoever of a bomb detonating in the basement of the WTC.

-Gumboot

 

[Furcifer]

Although I appreciate your statement, please don't give me anything. I'm asking you what it would take to convince you that an explosive device was used in the sublevels of the North Tower: Sublevels absent empirical evidence that would have been destroyed in the collapse?

A piece of cheesecake. Now that we have that taken care of, lets talk about WHY. I'll sit here quietly and eat my cake while you tell me your theory. Although a theory requires proof, so let's call it your "suppositions"

 

[kookbreaker]

Yours.

Something special in my world? Now, now lets not attack the person as the moderators have asked, but instead attack the arguement. See you have missed part of the discussion. You need to read Gravy's source on white smoke in relation to kerosene.

There's this bit of nonsense from you:

We both know Mike Pecoraro thought it was from a car in the garage above him. Also notice the sequence of events. After smelling the kerosene, he reports NO EXPLOSION but does witness destruction of the machine shop.

So far, nothing big.

In Ed's account notice the squence: he sees the white smoke after the explosion in the stairwell. But reports no explosion from the white smoke after the explosion. Yet you contend it is kerosene vapor which is on the verge of exploding. Your own source on "white smoke" states that if you see white smoke, don't light the kerosene heater because it is kerosene vapor and it will explode. Yet in the two above accounts, they see white smoke after an explosion.

You realise that you are automatically assuming that kerosene vapor will result in an instant explosion, right? Well, let's say you hav an ingition source, but is your oxygen percentage enough to cause a burn?

You premise seems to be that the existance of white smoke, if it is not burnt Kerosene, must automatically explode. That's a false assumption.

 

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler
1. Nobody witnessed a fireball from the collapse zone decending all the way from the impact zone to B-4 into the Path Platform.

... "Keep in mind as you continue to read the accounts, that a single fireball from the impact zone almost 80 floors above traveled down a single elevator shaft, failed to kill or even burn the elevator operator, Arturo Griffith, but causes all of this damage in the various levels of the basement."

I have repeatedly asked you to justify these statements, and have repeatedly called them straw man arguments. I'm asking you to think about what you write.

Final time: do you understand why these are straw man arguments?

 

[hard lines]

Kilo for kilo, Avgas contains over ten times the stored chemical energy of TNT. And there were over 25,000 kg of fuel in each crash. That's why.

There was no avgas in the WTC

 

[hard lines]

Also keep in mind that the service elevator fell from the 40th floor and probably hit bottom a few seconds before the arrival of the jet fuel fireball. It's possible he heard or felt the elevator hit bottom and then heard the fuel explosion coming down from above.

Just speculation.

The service elevator (50a) didn't hit the bottom

 

[hard lines]

Here's a report from someone who I believe also helped Felipe David. Although if he did then Rodriguez seems to have airbrushed him from history:

Quote:
Kenneth Johannemann
36, janitor at 1 World Trade Center
My shift is 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. I'm always on time, but today I got lucky because I went on the 30th floor to get a cup of coffee. If I hadn't gotten that cup of coffee, I would have gotten blown up on the elevator. I was waiting by the elevator to go do the restrooms, and then there was a big bang, and the whole building shook. The elevator door flew open, and a guy stumbled out, and he was badly burned up. It seemed like he was smoldering, almost.
He was a delivery guy. The skin from his wrist was hanging down past his fingertips. He was screaming all sorts of things like, "Bombing! Please get me out of here! I'm going to die!" I took him down the hallway right around the corner to my supervisor's office. Me and another janitor grabbed the man and took him outside, one on each arm. There was an EMS truck already outside, and those guys just grabbed him and pushed us aside. I wish I knew what happened to him, but I have no idea. He was burned up bad but he was still alive. I really hope he survived.

This quote is interesting, it describes what appears to be David Felipe stepping out of an elevator car. Although David Felipe himself says he was only in front of the car, if he were in the car, which lift car would it be? Car 50 was occupied by Griffith, and according to NIST 6 & 7 were out of order. There were no other cars which extended to the impact zone, and therefore could not have been a route for the fireball.

 

[hard lines]

A 50-ton press is not large by any means. It would weigh about as much as the 300 lb. fire door, if not a little more.

This would be a good example; www2.northerntool.com/product-1/475.htm

Actually that is a poor example. The image you linked to is a light weight domestic type. I have personally installed a industrial 10 ton press much bigger than that, and whilst a 50 ton press doesn't weigh 50 tons, they aren't some light weight piece of equipment.

 

[hard lines]

None of Ms. Cruz, Mr. Lever, Mr. Delbianco, or Mr. Griffith (not "Griffin") say that there were bombs or explosives emanating from the sub-basement levels, nor do any of them say that there were explosions prior to the airplane hitting the tower.

Ms. Cruz was in the elevator with Mr. Griffith. Both she and Mr. Griffith describe fire coming down the elevator shaft after the elevator fell several floors. Neither describes any explosions occurring prior to the airplane striking the tower, nor do they describe any explosions coming from below.

A. GRIFFITH: Well, I was on my way from B-2 to 49th floor. And as I took off, it was amount it was a matter of seconds -- five, six, seven seconds, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my said and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening.

When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator, and I think I'm sure that that was what broke my leg. And then they had another explosion and the panel that threw me, you know, against the wall, and I guess I was unconscious for a couple of minutes because somebody else was in the elevator with me, and they say that they was trying to get my attention and they didn't get no response from me.

transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/06/lklw.00.html

 

[hard lines]

Well a cave in a B-4 and the PATH plaza support Willie's statements. Not only that, a destroyed machine shop as well as a parking garage confirm it as well. Lets not forget destroyed and cracked walls as well.
Now is it not strange that a fireball traveling that far down a single shaft doesn't destroy floors,walls and shafts all the way down?

Common sense and logic will tell you that a fireball did not create the damage in the sublevels as far down as B-4. Arthuro Griffith the operator of the only elevator whose shaft reached the impact floors to the lowest part of the basement where massive damage was witnesses suffered no injuries from a fireball while in his elevator. If the fireball myth were true, he would be dead.

Actually, although cars 6 & 7 only serviced to B1, their shafts extended to B4

 

[Gravy]

There was no avgas in the WTC

Jet-A fuel, which is essentially kerosene. You aren't disputing that there was a lot of it in the towers after the plane impacts, are you?

Also, if you're just trolling, you should stop. It isn't funny or mature.

 

[gumboot]

Technically he's right, although I am sure it's very obvious R.Mackey meant Jet-A fuel.

-Gumboot

 

[Gravy]

Actually that is a poor example. The image you linked to is a light weight domestic type. I have personally installed a industrial 10 ton press much bigger than that, and whilst a 50 ton press doesn't weigh 50 tons, they aren't some light weight piece of equipment.

You do understand that the descripton of the press being destroyed could simply mean it was knocked over or buried by debris, right? Are you arguing for explosives planted in the towers? If so, will you be presenting any evidence?