Does anyone else back up William Rodriguez's story?

[gumboot]

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

Eye witness testimony that supports the contention.

Assuming you're talking explosive device at moment of collapse, an explanation for how an explosion in the basement managed to cause the tower to collapse without destroying the lower core, and and explanation for why this explosion was not captured on the multitude of video cameras recording in the area.

Forensic evidence of explosives.

An explanation for how an explosion in the basement produced phenomena seen on 9/11 as part of the collapse sequence (a sequence that is not speculative, but supported by primary evidence (both physical and eyewitness) as well as forensic evidence and modelling evidence).

-Gumboot

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
4. The witness suffered human injury consistent from an explosive device of unknown origin and location.

No, the most you can say is that they suffered injury consistent with an explosion. Go reread post 111.

5. Therefore I assume that a car or truck was a method of attack.

Which introduces confirmation bias and starts you down the path of logical fallacies. Have you bothered to follow up with the FBI and ask them why they dropped their working hypothesis you outlined above?

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.

Go reread post 111.

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?

• Witness testimony describing observing an explosive device prior to it detonating
• Remnants of an explosive device
• Data that is inconsistent, that is to say would falsify, the FAE theory

 

[Swing Dangler]

Gravy can you ask again, I've lost the question in the discussion. Sorry.
Thanks!
The structural damage I was referring to was the basement levels, offices, parking garage, walls, ceiling, PATH Plaza, etc. Was that the post you were referring to?

 

[Swing Dangler]

* Witness testimony describing observing an explosive device prior to it detonating
* Remnants of an explosive device
* Data that is inconsistent, that is to say would falsify, the FAE theory

1. Would terrorists have placed a device in a location to be witnessed by anyone? I doubt it. Would a witness know what an explosive device looks like if not trained in that field? I doubt it. Unless of course we are talking Hollywood types of devices with the red and blue wires and the clock ticking down. If a car or truck as a possible method of delivery be able to be described with explosives in it by a passive observer?
2. Would there be any evidence left after a global collapse of two towers?
3. What data IYO would falsify the fireball? Other than the Griffith's accounts
of survival?
4. What empirical evidence did NIST provide to support their contention that a fireball caused the damage? I found none. I've only found assumptions made by the authors whose evidence they used to arrive at their conclusion was pictures, video, and eyewitness statements.
I applaud your willingness to accept that a device could be used, however, at least two of your requirements are nearly impossible if not impossible to provide.

Gumbot-The premise at this point is not on timing of detonation in relation to the impacts or its effect on the collapse sequence.

 

[Swing Dangler]

No, the most you can say is that they suffered injury consistent with an explosion. Go reread post 111.

This in incorrect. The explosive device at this point is either jet fuel in whatever form, or some other type of device.

Post 111 does not consider the entire sequence of events that were experienced by victims. Post 111 leaves out the resulting damage to the environment, injuries other than burns, and the first thoughts of those victims.

Call To All, especially Gravy:
Gentlemen in Ed Mcabe's account, he mentions 9 unprepared firefighters that he has encountered. In his accounts he meets these firefighters in Sub-4 after what the first impact and the lights go out. However, and this is what bothers me, all 9 firemen leave Ed behind in the darkness, and as far as we know, do not return. Not a single firefighter has a flashlight. Ed is upset that not even 1 firefighter is remains behind and he assumes the firefighters return to get flashlights but doesn't state they did for sure. It is an assumption on his part.. After reading the accounts of firefighters, this is contradictory to what woudl be expected of firefighters.
The request: has anyone been able to confim these 9 firefighters as being in the basement? Or is there another source that can place 9 firefighters in this basement shortly after the first impact?

explanation for why this explosion was not captured on the multitude of video cameras recording in the area.

Forensic evidence of explosives.

To my knoweldge, all video evidence from the surrounding area was destroyed by the three collapses.
Can you elaborate on forensic evidence as this is a very broad statement?
Thanks.

 

[gumboot]

There's no evidence whatsoever of any explosive devices being detonated at the WTC on9/11. None. There is ample evidence that a fuel-laden jetliner was deliberately flown into both WTC1 and WTC2.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

To my knoweldge, all video evidence from the surrounding area was destroyed by the three collapses.

Garbage. There are countless videos of the collapses. None captured explosives (videos that have been poorly faked by Conspiracy Theorists don't count).

Can you elaborate on forensic evidence as this is a very broad statement?
Thanks.

Explosives leave forensic evidence. Residue, remains of devices, distinct damage marks, etc. Forensic teams sifted through 1.4 million tonnes of debris by hand, looking for anything like this. They found none.

-Gumboot

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, the most you can say is that they suffered injury consistent with an explosion. Go reread post 111.

This in incorrect. The explosive device at this point is either jet fuel in whatever form, or some other type of device.

A FAE resulting from the aerosolizing of the jet fuel is not an "explosive device", an explosive device clearly implies a device designed to explode.

Post 111 does not consider the entire sequence of events that were experienced by victims. Post 111 leaves out the resulting damage to the environment, injuries other than burns, and the first thoughts of those victims.

Let me spell this out very slowly for you; you can not assume because there was an explosion that it had to come from an explosive device, bomb, ied, etc.

Can you elaborate on forensic evidence as this is a very broad statement?
Thanks.

Chemical residue of explosive, detcord, inition device, etc

 

[Alt+F4]

1. Would terrorists have placed a device in a location to be witnessed by anyone? I doubt it. Would a witness know what an explosive device looks like if not trained in that field? I doubt it. Unless of course we are talking Hollywood types of devices with the red and blue wires and the clock ticking down. If a car or truck as a possible method of delivery be able to be described with explosives in it by a passive observer?

Since the 1993 bombing every vehicle that entered the WTC Truck Dock was inspected and sniffed by a PAPD exposives detection dog.

 

[gumboot]

It's worth point out that after the 1993 WTC Bombing, security at the WTC was significantly increased, especially for trucks etc. entering the sub-levels. I find it highly unlikely that anyone could have got an explosive into those parking garages a second time.

One would also have to wonder why anyone attempting to destroy the WTC with explosives would use an FAE. Not only are they relatively complicated weapons, but they're pretty useless for building demolition, and you'd need a very big bomb to do any serious damage.

The injuries suffered by victims of the attack are consistent with a FAE. They are not even remotely consistent with any other sort of explosive device.

And even then, their wounds are not consistent with a FAE detonated very close to them. If a FAE was detonated in the basement, they would all have burned to death or asphyxiated.

-Gumboot

 

[Gravy]

Gravy can you ask again, I've lost the question in the discussion. Sorry.
Thanks!

Evasion noted. How many times do I have to ask the same questions? Please stop wasting my time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2632158&postcount=119

I'd also like you to comment on the white kerosene smoke, which you said didn't exist. Do you now agree that it is consistent with jet fuel vapors?

The structural damage I was referring to was the basement levels, offices, parking garage, walls, ceiling, PATH Plaza, etc. Was that the post you were referring to?

The structure is that which makes the building remain standing: what structural engineers design, and what would need to be severely damaged in order to weaken the building. I have seen no accounts that indicate structural damage after the north tower elevator shaft blast.

So you can't say you missed it again, here it is again. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2632158&postcount=119

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

A fuel-air explosion (FAE)would send an accelerating shockwave down the shafts. The reason FAEs seem less violent that high explosives (HE), despite their much higher energy content, is that their shockwave is subsonic (as opposed to the supersonic shockwave of HE). However, when confined in a shaft, the FAE will accelerate the shockwave as the hot gasses expand behind it, and it will very likely make more damage near the end of the shaft, where the speeding column of air is stopped by the end and forced to expand to the sides. As the gas expands, it cools off so while more violent at the end of the shaft, it will be less hot.

So, according to logic and common sense, not the mention physics, an FAE fits the testimony very well, indeed.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Uhm, sorry, my post above was in reply to something on page two. I didn't realize how far the thread had moved, Anywayz, it still stands,

Hans

 

[Swing Dangler]

Since the 1993 bombing every vehicle that entered the WTC Truck Dock was inspected and sniffed by a PAPD exposives detection dog.

Source and empirical evidence, please?

Explosives leave forensic evidence. Residue, remains of devices, distinct damage marks, etc. Forensic teams sifted through 1.4 million tonnes of debris by hand, looking for anything like this. They found none.

Source? And sifting equates to chemical testing now?

Garbage. There are countless videos of the collapses.

How many videos captured the event in the basement during or after impact? How many videos captured the first impact?

Not a diversion, Gravy, why is it a strawman? Is that the question your accusing me of avoiding? Or you could just come out again and state the question again.

White smoke in the tower's basement is now kerosene vapor according to you, or at least your expert, Roger Sanders, Waste Oil Heater article. Well if you want to use Roger Sanders as an expert on JetA fuel vapor, that is your choice. Why you would choose to do so is beyond me. An explanation for the white smoke, I presume. Who is Roger Sanders anyway and how does a waste oil heater prove anything in relation to the topic?

So I decided to take a look at the worst case scenario: A Review of the Flammability Hazard of JetA Fuel Vapor In Civil Transport Aircraft Fuel Tanks. And to my suprise, there is not a single mention of JetA fuel vapor in a white smoke form. Well to give you the benefit of the doubt I decided to check out Shepherd, J. E., Explosion of Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Vapors, CIT Presentation at
NTSB Meeting, October 7, 1997, NTSB Docket No. SA-516, Exhibit No. 20F.
And to my suprise again, not a single mention of jetA fuel vapors being white.
So to answer your question after doing some homework, I'm confident that the white smoke observed in the basement or anywhere for that matter was not JetA fuel vapor as you contend.
Have you changed your mind regarding what the "white smoke" might be?

I have seen no accounts that indicate structural damage after the north tower elevator shaft blast.

Of course that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Were there structural engineers in the sublevels during the first impact?

So, according to logic and common sense, not the mention physics, an FAE fits the testimony very well, indeed.

I have seen no emperical evidence to support the fireball theory. I have only seem assumptions made by NIST. Assumptions on the fuel that ignited and assumptions on the fuel remaining. NIST to my knowledge has shown no calculations supporting the assumption that a fireball in the basement caused the damage witnessed there.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Let me spell this out very slowly for you; you can not assume because there was an explosion that it had to come from an explosive device, bomb, ied, etc.

Again, you leave out the logical order of events. Sound/Human injury/environmental damage/first thoughts of victims and FBI hypothesis.

In the same way that NIST assumed a fireball created the damage in the basement without empirical evidence, I can assume an explosive device caused the damage. The conclusion is reached through empirical method as you know.

 

[Swing Dangler]

A FAE resulting from the aerosolizing of the jet fuel is not an "explosive device", an explosive device clearly implies a device designed to explode.

Now your getting into semantics and straying off topic.

Back to English 101 I guess...
Dictionary.com:

Device-a thing made for a particular purpose
Thing-a material object without life.
Fuel-Something consumed to produce energy
Explosion-the burning of the mixture of fuel and air.

I will repeat the question for the 5 posters of have ignored it:
So therefore, jet fuel does serve as an explosive device. I await your retraction.

What would it take to convince you an explosive device other than jet fuel was used in the basement of WTC: North Tower?

 

[CHF]

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

Let's start with a logical reason for a seb-level explosive being used in a top-down collapse.

And don't say "to cut the core so that the top would collapse a friggin' hour later."

 

[Swing Dangler]

Still no response to my post, Swing?

As I responded to yours, will you be pointing the errors out in my work that you state are there?

 

[Quad4_72]

As I responded to yours, will you be pointing the errors out in my work that you state are there?

Is there any chance that you could point out ONE error in Gravy's paper? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Alt+F4]

Source and empirical evidence, please?

From PAPD Officer David Lim's testimony to the 9/11 Commission:

I am a Police Officer in the employ of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. I have been such for the greater part of the last 23 years. On Sept. 11th, 2001, our Police Department suffered the greatest single day loss in Law Enforcement history @ the World Trade Center. 37 Officers from every rank (Superintendent to Police Officer) as well as my partner, explosive detector K-9 Sirius were killed in the attack. Many would ask what the PAPD was doing in the World Trade Center. A little known fact was that we were always there. Since the Port Authority owned the buildings, we (the Police) were responsible for the public safety therein. We were there in 93' as well as on 9/11. We were in fact the first responders to this tragedy & in conjunction with the NYPD, FDNY, EMS & other Emergency Service Units actively participated in the greatest rescue effort this city had ever seen.

On that fateful day, my job was checking vehicles that were entering the WTC Truck Dock for possible explosives.

Bolding mine.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_lim.htm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/america.remembers/stories/heroes/lim.html
http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/PortAuthorityPolice/K-9Unit/
http://www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org/Sirius press_clipping.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_Police_Department#K-9_Unit