Does anyone else back up William Rodriguez's story?

[T.A.M.]

Swing:

Just a note...I think it is poor form to try to dictate what a rebuttal must contain or accomplish unless you are the one providing the rebuttal.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

Holy crap! Is this "post the longest thing you can find" day on the forum? Every other post seems to be 300 paragraphs long.

Don't worry. It's astonishing how many facts he got wrong even after I provided them in my paper. He simply didn't pay attention at all. That's quite disappointing. He clearly doesn't give a damn about wasting people's time.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thursday, March 8, 2007
The Case For Explosives At The World Trade Center: North Tower Sublevel

<snip>
1. The NIST did not attempt to explain the reason for a global collapse nor consider the explosive device hypothesis because they saw no evidence. Does that make the existence of explosive devices(ED) invalid? No.

If there is no evidence of explosive devices, it is reasonable to exclude them from consideration. Consider "The NIST . . . nor consider the Invisible Pink Unicorn hypothesis because they saw no evidence. Does that make the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns invalid?" All that can be said is that there is no evidence to support the explosive device hypothesis, as attempting to prove a negative is generally a logical fallacy.

2. NIST provided no evidence to support their view that the collapse of upper floors led to a progressive collapse or more importantly a global collapse.

This is trivial to support on your part; show that global collapse would not result from the collapse of the upper floors. Please show your work.

We have no idea if the event in the basement assisted in the collape of the North Tower.

This is begging the question. You are assuming that there was a seperate event in the basement that may have contributed to the collapse.

3. The NIST made a conscience decision not to test for explosive residue at the WTC complex

How do you know they did not do so?

despite the overwhelming evidence that something occurred in the sublevels of WTC North Tower.

This is begging the question. You are assuming that there was a seperate event in the basement that may have contributed to the collapse.

<snip>
4. The historical record of terrorism against America is another valid reason to explore the ED hypothesis. I'm sure you are all aware of the 1993 WTC attack using a truck bomb in the subbasement at the WTC. If terrorists could use this tactic of placing an explosive device in their target once, isn’t it reasonable to suggest they might try that tactic again, especially when combined with the use of planes?

Is there any evidence suggesting that any methods of attack, aside from the planes, were employed that day?

<snip>and in the basement sublevels and centered around the core where the elevator shafts were located.

Begging the question, as above.

There is some testimony supporting an explosion taking place in the basement prior to impact,

Please see post #111 in this thread.

however, the timing of the event is not the premise of this examination, only the fact that an explosive event did occur that can not be attributed to a fireball from jet fuel.

Begging the question, and please review post #111 in this thread.

My first piece of evidence for arguing for an explosive device is the logical sequence of events that followed the explosive sound. Numerous things can sound like explosions. I do not dispute this. However, it is the reaction and change of the surroundings, the injuries to people, and their reactions and thoughts following the sound of the explosion which points to a device in the basement sublevels. All of the accounts below follow this locigcal sequence.

Please see post #111, it addresses not only that loud noises are not necessarily explosions, but also that explosions are not necessarily cause by explosive devices.

<snip>
Numerous witnesses in the sublevels have stated on record regarding the damage in the substructure of WTC-North Tower. To avoid the accusation of cherry picking or quote mining, I have provided the relevant link after each account. Also with each witness I have tried to use their words verbatim in the description of events that they experienced.

Anecdotal evidence is trumped by empirical evidence.

<snip>
Brief summary of experience: An explosive sound heard, followed by white smoke with massive damage on multiple floors, a parking garage destroyed, with burned and injured victims. All of this damage reported by this witness but no mention of fire damage or one iota of a fireball. There is also no soot reported in the lobby from the fireball from the plane that supposedly caused the damage. 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.
Source: Chief Engineer http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

A FAE does not cause damage by fire, as with any explosion it causes damage by overpressure.

<snip>
All of this damage people and the structure but not a single mention of the raging fireball that NIST states caused all of this damage.

To reiterate, a FAE is an explosion, this is functionally different from a large ball/plume/cloud of flame.

You really need to read up on what an FAE is and re-evaluate the evidence you are presenting in that light.

 

[beachnut]

I'm not arguing William's timing of impacts. I'm arguing that an explosive device was used by terrorists in the basement of WTC North Tower.

You have zero evidence. You have no concussion damage to humans. You know, blast effects. You know, William would be dragging out people with lung blast problems, abdominal hemorrhage and perforation, eye rupture, concussion. Where are the people damaged by a blast.

Explosions in confined spaces, like a Building, are associated with greater morbidity and mortality. Oh. Got some dead people from blast effects in the confined space of the basement? Or do you have damage that is due to a very large aircraft impact?

Just a question. Is it required that all truthers have zero ability to reserach?

 

[Quad4_72]

Thursday, March 8, 2007
2. Male Caller on Portable Device call to PAPD Officer Brady
a. Location- B-1 level
b. “We had a ….minor explosion (inaudible). Or a major explosion.
Brief Summary: Again, the fireball and expected secondary fires are missing.
Port Authority Transcript
Source: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...nscript010.pdf

I randomly went to the middle of your novel and took a look at the first quote I saw. Do you have any idea the context behind this quote? You are using it as evidence that there was no fireball but you don't know the context of the quote. How do you know it was not someone just reporting what another person told him? Maybe he just saw a little bit of the aftermath and assumed explosion? How do you know that he was in any position whatsoever to make a valid assumption? Did he SEE the fireball or explosion? Swing, all of your eyewitness reports are like this. The ones Gravy uses in his paper are from people who were actually there and saw the fireball. Plus there injuries are consistent with a fireball. It is actually a little dishonest that you would take those port authority quotes and try to use them as evidence that there was a bomb in the basement.

 

[bje]

Sorry but I must retire for the evening. I will check back tommorrow.

For those who aren't familiar with me from SLC, I have no need to lie to support my contention. I will admit if I am wrong or shown to be wrong from the evidence. Again, I have no need to lie, so there is no reason to think so.

But there is every reason to ask you why you have changed your story from the chat room session of the Rob Bishop show the other night. Then, you were going to tell us how the whole plot transpired.

Rather curious change, SwingDangler, wouldn't you agree?

 

[CHF]

But there is every reason to ask you why you have changed your story from the chat room session of the Rob Bishop show the other night. Then, you were going to tell us how the whole plot transpired.

I think he's trying to appear rational here and so he doesn't wanna jump right into the complete twoofer nuttiness.

That's why he's saying the basement bomb was set off by "terrorists" yet refuses to say who he thinks those terrorists are.

 

[Quad4_72]

I think he's trying to appear rational here and so he doesn't wanna jump right into the complete twoofer nuttiness.

That's why he's saying the basement bomb was set off by "terrorists" yet refuses to say who he thinks those terrorists are.

I have to say I am with you on this one CHF. I am pretty sure that Swing is FULL BLOWN twoofer and has yet to admit it to us. We have seen it time and time again. A twoofer will come in and pretend that they are on the fence and "Just asking questions". Of course when the answers are presented, the twoofer ignores them and his full blown woo shows through.

 

[CHF]

I have to say I am with you on this one CHF. I am pretty sure that Swing is FULL BLOWN twoofer and has yet to admit it to us. We have seen it time and time again. A twoofer will come in and pretend that they are on the fence and "Just asking questions". Of course when the answers are presented, the twoofer ignores them and his full blown woo shows through.

I'm not pretty sure. I know. He's a regular on SLC. Demolitions, chem-trails, JFK...you name it.

I dunno why he's so reluctant to just come out and say what he thinks.

 

[Quad4_72]

I'm not pretty sure. I know. He's a regular on SLC. Demolitions, chem-trails, JFK...you name it.

I dunno why he's so reluctant to just come out and say what he thinks.

Whats his name on there? I am a regular on SLC.

 

[JimBenArm]

Whats his name on there? I am a regular on SLC.

The same. I've seen him in the comments over there. Not sure if he's on the forums there or not. I hazarded that place just a few times, then came back here. It's a little too wild-west for me there!

 

[Quad4_72]

The same. I've seen him in the comments over there. Not sure if he's on the forums there or not. I hazarded that place just a few times, then came back here. It's a little too wild-west for me there!

Haha. It definitely is an anything goes forum! But I thought CHF was refferring to him being on the forums cause I have never seen him in there.

 

[pomeroo]

Just trying to coax a little honesty out of you, that's all.

People who have caught Swingie's act on SLC are ROTFLTAO.

 

[pomeroo]

Swing, before I proceed with my critique, I'm going to ask two things of you.

1) Please define "structural damage."

2) Please justify this statement of yours. I have twice called it a straw man. Do you know why?





Oh, I will add this point while I'm here. You said,





I sure wish you had read the other accounts of white smoke, or otherwise done your homework. Kerosene vapors are white.



EDIT: I forgot Ed McCabe's account of the white smoke:



And in the south tower:

You forgot to ask Swing Dumpster what cordite does. He loves that question so much that he just can't bear to answer it.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Evidence: the logical squence of events pointing to an explosive device: explosive sound/human damage/ structure & environment damage/historical tactics of terrorists around the globe/ and the event reminded many witnesses of 1993 attack/
. I

s there any evidence suggesting that any methods of attack, aside from the planes, were employed that day?

Aside from a survivor actually seeing a bomb or any agency testing for explosive residue, there is no direct evidence.
However, the FBI apparently thought differently. The FBI's working hypothesis: at the same time two planes hit the buildiing that the FBI most likely thinks a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time brought the buidlings down. That is the working theory at this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGE6GNKNpPA
A very interesting newsreport indeed.

You are using it as evidence that there was no fireball but you don't know the context of the quote.

That is the problem with pulling something randomly out of the paper. The transcripts are used to support the logical sequence of events that occured in the basement as well as point out damage that a fireball supposedly caused.

You have no concussion damage to humans. You know, blast effects. You know, William would be dragging out people with lung blast problems, abdominal hemorrhage and perforation, eye rupture, concussion. Where are the people damaged by a blast.

You understand the assumptions you are making correct? Such as the type of device, the relative location of the device to victims, rooms, walls, equipement, etc in the impacted levels, etc. If we had those answers, then your statement might have relevance to the topic. Perhaps you should read all of the accounts from as many sources as possible before commenting on the damage to humans.

FAE does not cause damage by fire, as with any explosion it causes damage by overpressure.

From an expert:
Weapons Aspects of thermobaric weaponry
Dr Anna E Wildegger-Gaissmaier, PhD
Target effects and countermeasures
"Box 2 shows the injury mechanisms for detonation of an explosive charge in the open. The mechanisms are the same for high explosives and thermobaric explosives. Thermal injuries usually occur close to the origin of the explosion. The lethal range for burn injuries is defined by the size of the fireball. The lethal area for blast injuries overlaps and exceeds the area of thermal injuries. As pressure effects decline over distance, the blast injury lethality also decreases. The lethal range for fragment/blunt trauma events extends far beyond the lethal range for blast. "
I think you understand now that FAE does cause damage by fire.

Anecdotal evidence is trumped by empirical evidence.

I would accept this if you can show that fire after detonation upon impact traveled down the shaft with car 50A to level 4 to cause a cave in at B-4 and on the PATH Plaza platform but not kill Arturo Griffith in the elevator car. Not only that, provide the figures to support the overpressure and the
And show that a fire traveled down shaft 6 to b-1 and cause the damage there but not kill Aruturo's wife.
And if not fire then a kerosene vapor cloud...In the NIST snip below I didn't read where they determined what the % of vapor to air was to ignite a vapor cloud so far below the towers.
1. Is that somewhere in the report to support the fire or vapor explosion from jet fuel in the basement as far as B-4?

This is trivial to support on your part; show that global collapse would not result from the collapse of the upper floors. Please show your work.

Trivial of course is an opinion as New Structural Engineer called for that work to show global collapse. The event did assist in the collapse. How little or how great of assistance would depend upon computer models that take into consideration an explosive event in the basement, and we all know NIST isn't entertaing that idea despite the FBI's original working hypothesis.

This is begging the question. You are assuming that there was a seperate event in the basement that may have contributed to the collapse.

The premise is that the event was an explosive device. The event you are supporting is either a fireball or vapor event. Depending on which you choose to accept, the event did contribute to the collapse. How much or how little is dependent upon anaylysis by a controlled demolition specialist or a structural engineer. After all, multiple cave ins, rooms destroyed, and walls that are destroyed do reduce resistance no matter how insignificant.

Please see post #111, it addresses not only that loud noises are not necessarily explosions, but also that explosions are not necessarily cause by explosive devices.

Had you read my post in full, you would already know that I agree about sounds equating to explosions etc. But you cherry picked a quote to make this point yet again. Although I do appreciate the logical squence you posted, it was completely unnecessary because in the analysis you left out multiple parts to the whole.

Please read my paper for all the accounts of kerosene smell throughout the towers.

Thankyou I have and I'm only interested in the sublevels. 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.
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.
2. What event heated the basement elevator, shafts, and stairwells as far as B-4 to the point of turning kerosene to vapor, ie. white smoke? I would be anxious to hear your answer for this.

I do not think you can use "white smoke" in the basement as evidence of kerosene vapor traveling down the shafts unignited AFTER explosions.

t's astonishing how many facts he got wrong even after I provided them in my paper. He simply didn't pay attention at all. That's quite disappointing. He clearly doesn't give a damn about wasting people's time.

3. If you get time, could you please list what facts I got wrong so that I may correct them in my research? A sort of adhoc peer review? And I'm serious on this issue despite the bickering witnessed at SLC comments as I do respect your body of knoweldge and research despite our opposing view points on certain issues.

If so , I would be happy to do the same to your own paper which has several errors as well.

Swing, all of your eyewitness reports are like this. The ones Gravy uses in his paper are from people who were actually there and saw the fireball.

If you read my anaysis you will see that we use many of the same witnesses. As I've already stated, I would be more than happy to list the errors I've found in the testimony segement alone. I won't of course list them, unless they need to be listed as my point here is not to attack other people's work, but to have my own work attacked.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Aside from a survivor actually seeing a bomb or any agency testing for explosive residue, there is no direct evidence.
However, the FBI apparently thought differently. The FBI's working hypothesis: at the same time two planes hit the buildiing that the FBI most likely thinks a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time brought the buidlings down. That is the working theory at this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGE6GNKNpPA
A very interesting newsreport indeed.

Since, apparently, the blatently obvious needs to be stated for you; a news report, on 9/11, discussing a working hypothesis by the FBI does not consistute empirical evidence that other methods of attack were employed that day.

From an expert:
Weapons Aspects of thermobaric weaponry
Dr Anna E Wildegger-Gaissmaier, PhD
Target effects and countermeasures
"Box 2 shows the injury mechanisms for detonation of an explosive charge in the open. The mechanisms are the same for high explosives and thermobaric explosives. Thermal injuries usually occur close to the origin f the explosion. The lethal range for burn injuries is defined by the size of the fireball. The lethal area for blast injuries overlaps and exceeds the area of thermal injuries. As pressure effects decline over distance, the blast injury lethality also decreases. The lethal range for fragment/blunt trauma events extends far beyond the lethal range for blast. "
I think you understand now that FAE does cause damage by fire.

1. Source? Actual link that is.
2. You do understand that at any point close enough for fire damage to occur there must be overpressure damage and that overpressure damage "extends far beyond the lethal range" of the blast?

I would accept this if you can show that fire after detonation upon impact traveled down the shaft with car 50A to level 4 to cause a cave in at B-4 and on the PATH Plaza platform but not kill Arturo Griffith in the elevator car. Not only that, provide the figures to support the overpressure and the
And show that a fire traveled down shaft 6 to b-1 and cause the damage there but not kill Aruturo's wife.
And if not fire then a kerosene vapor cloud...In the NIST snip below I didn't read where they determined what the % of vapor to air was to ignite a vapor cloud so far below the towers.
1. Is that somewhere in the report to support the fire or vapor explosion from jet fuel in the basement as far as B-4?

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. Provide empirical evidence supporting your interpretation of the quotes you provide.

Trivial of course is an opinion as New Structural Engineer called for that work to show global collapse. The event did assist in the collapse. How little or how great of assistance would depend upon computer models that take into consideration an explosive event in the basement, and we all know NIST isn't entertaing that idea despite the FBI's original working hypothesis.

So, your can not, or will not, do the work?

The premise is that the event was an explosive device. The event you are supporting is either a fireball or vapor event. Depending on which you choose to accept, the event did contribute to the collapse. How much or how little is dependent upon anaylysis by a controlled demolition specialist or a structural engineer.

Okay, so where's the analysis by your structural engineer?

Had you read my post in full, you would already know that I agree about sounds equating to explosions etc. But you cherry picked a quote to make this point yet again. Although I do appreciate the logical squence you posted, it was completely unnecessary because in the analysis you left out multiple parts to the whole.

No, the point needed to be made again, because, apparently, it still hasn't sunk in to your skull yet. You are making illogical leaps in reasoning, and you are not substantiating your interpretation of witness testimony with empirical evidence.

 

[CHF]

However, the FBI apparently thought differently. The FBI's working hypothesis: at the same time two planes hit the buildiing that the FBI most likely thinks a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time brought the buidlings down. That is the working theory at this point.

When is the video clip from? What's the date?

I see nothing of the sort on USAToday or the FBI's site.

 

[Gravy]

Still no response to my post, Swing?

 

[Gravy]

Bump.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Since, apparently, the blatently obvious needs to be stated for you; a news report, on 9/11, discussing a working hypothesis by the FBI does not consistute empirical evidence that other methods of attack were employed that day.


1. Source? Actual link that is.
2. You do understand that at any point close enough for fire damage to occur there must be overpressure damage and that overpressure damage "extends far beyond the lethal range" of the blast?


Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. Provide empirical evidence supporting your interpretation of the quotes you provide.


So, your can not, or will not, do the work?


Okay, so where's the analysis by your structural engineer?


No, the point needed to be made again, because, apparently, it still hasn't sunk in to your skull yet. You are making illogical leaps in reasoning, and you are not substantiating your interpretation of witness testimony with empirical evidence.

As far as empirical evidence goes, it was destroyed on 9/11/01, so I am using the empirical method to arrive at my hypothesis. I am also using assumptions in my of analysis much like NIST did when the evaluated the fire damage to the interior of the towers. There is absence of empirical evidence because it was destroyed, however, that does not disprove the theory.

1. The WTC had a parking garage under WTC: North Tower
2. The damage was in the basement and destroyed a parking garage as well as multiple cave ins.
3. The working hypothesis of the FBI was a car or truck bomb packed with explosives underneath the towers.
4. The witness suffered human injury consistent from an explosive device of unknown origin and location.
5. Therefore I assume that a car or truck was a method of attack.
I can't do the work as I am not qualified to do the work. I will wait for the engineering community to validate or invalidate the computer models of global collapse if ever created and released.
6. The I can't find the link, however, if you google her, you can find the paper she wrote.
7. Please point out where arriving at an explosive device for the destruction of the basement is an illogical leap in reasoing considering the logical sequence of events witnesses experienced, the historical record of terrorism against, and the lack of empirical evidence supporting the fireball theory, not only that, empirical evidence supporting the lack of a fireball with such destructive capabilities.

Now may I ask:
Question for all:

8. What would it take to convince you that an explosive device was used in the sublevels of the basement of WTC: North Tower?