Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Totovader]

Have you even read the entire thread and seen the kind of rude and off-topic treatment i've gotten from Arus808 and Totovader? Although Totovader may have started the thread, not one of his replies to me has been on-topic, and all have either personally attacked me or been snide and condescending, offering nothing to the discussion.

I linked to several of your comments which were personal attacks. You have been quite rude- and I have only returned the favor on some occasions. Your whining will not cease me from biting back.

Again, I feel compelled to point out that my replies to you are replies. Thus, if you're claiming that "not one" of my replies has been on-topic, then you're saying that you're not on-topic.

It's obvious that I'm the "newcomer" to the board, and all of you are in bed with each other, so it's easy to demonize me and gang up.

Appeal to pity.

That makes a lot of you rank hypocrites who aren't really interested in the topic at hand, just shouting down people you don't agree with.

Ad hominem.

Anyone who reads my posts can clearly see I have a genuine interest in learning more about this issue, and posting my ideas. I've had enough of the bullying - it's getting old.

I've had enough of the whining- personally. But anyone who really wants to believe your statement here should see my earlier post quoting your statements from this thread alone- which absolutely contradict your claim that you've got "genuine interest in learning". You've beaten your chest so hard that you're crying about the pain- and then you want to blame everyone else.

I'm pretty sure no one buys your sob story- especially since you're using it as a scapegoat to avoid the discussion at the same time you're trying to pretend to be all about it.

 

[Garb]

And did you notice that the last sentence of my post was? It was "Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical." What that shows is that i was using CRITICAL THINKING, and considering all of the possibilities for and against that beam being evidence.

Did I say "that one beam in that one picture proves that explosives were used?" NO.

How can I "come back with the cut columns nonsense" when I have never mentioned it in the first place? This is further evidence that you're the one attacking me at every opportunity and not even reading my posts. You just jockey on that keyboard at the first instant you think you've "got me." p.s. - G.F.Y.

If you were looking at all the possibilities, you would figure out that thermite doesn't act like that, that there would be an incredible amount of residue from thermite (due to the large amount of thermite required to cut a single column), and that there has been a large amount of evidence to show that the beam was most likely cut after the collapse.

And I am curious to know what GFY means. I have one guess, but I don't want to jump the gun here.

 

[brasil]

Brazil how did the thermite make these cuts? Diagonal and horizontal?

PS. Thermite is used for welding and leaves a white residue, can you show me any white residue?

Did I say that "thermite made these cuts?" NO. I quoted a website and linked to a picture. I was not aware until now that there was video footage of a cleanup crew guy explaining how they cut the steel at an angle like that, however, BEFORE seeing that video just now I had the intelligence and lack of bias to come up with the idea on my own. I'm able to consider both sides of a theory and find the best fit. I am not "defending" anything the way just about everyone else on here is. I am looking for answers. I now consider that photo 99% debunked based on the video I was linked to (the 1% doubt is that I can't be sure that column did not end up that way due to the collapse, or that it's one of the columns the cleanup guy is referring to).

It takes a real man to admit he was wrong, or even likely wrong. I will not bring up that photo again. I wonder how many people on here can be as unbiased as I am?

 

[Totovader]

And did you notice that the last sentence of my post was? It was "Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical." What that shows is that i was using CRITICAL THINKING, and considering all of the possibilities for and against that beam being evidence.

It's not CRITICAL THINKING if you DON'T DO THE RESEARCH, but instead demand that everyone else do it for you. You started off your journey here being "the expert" and have quickly cowered in the corner as just an oddity. You tossed this rotten worm out in an attempt to fish for an argument, instead of presenting your case.

I find it continually astonishing that you have arrived at your conclusions before you asked for the evidence to be handed to you.

Did I say "that one beam in that one picture proves that explosives were used?" NO.

Did you do your own research? NO.

How can I "come back with the cut columns nonsense" when I have never mentioned it in the first place?

Perhaps you didn't read your own post?

This is further evidence that you're the one attacking me at every opportunity and not even reading my posts.

Oh stop your crying. If you can't handle criticism- then "don't post".

You just jockey on that keyboard at the first instant you think you've "got me." p.s. - G.F.Y.

And you must be so eager to cry and whine about being "harassed" for making stupid statements that you can't help but pull that waaaaambulance lever and try and drain some more sympathy from whoever you think is listening to you.

If you want to stop being corrected, then do some of your own research.

And- any more comments in regards to "GFY" really don't help your case- I will absolutely report them from now on.

 

[T.A.M.]

brasil:

People here are human, like you. As well, they are CONTINUOUSLY having to argue the same talking points over and over, and having to bang their heads off the brick wall over and over when the truthers (most of them) defy reasoning, ignore logic, ignore evidence, etc...

You are correct, it does take a bigger man to admit he was wrong. Good on you.

TAM

 

[brasil]

If you were looking at all the possibilities, you would figure out that thermite doesn't act like that, that there would be an incredible amount of residue from thermite (due to the large amount of thermite required to cut a single column), and that there has been a large amount of evidence to show that the beam was most likely cut after the collapse.

And I am curious to know what GFY means. I have one guess, but I don't want to jump the gun here.

If I remember correctly, shaped charges of explosives, used in demolitions, can cut steel at angles like that. I saw a demolition expert explain it on video. I don't know how to find the video now. I was not suggesting that thermite made the cut, however, if it had, I would think your "residue" would have been knocked off, covered in ash, or otherwise obscured by the violence of the collapse.

 

[Garb]

If I remember correctly, shaped charges of explosives, used in demolitions, can cut steel at angles like that. I saw a demolition expert explain it on video. I don't know how to find the video now. I was not suggesting that thermite made the cut, however, if it had, I would think your "residue" would have been knocked off, covered in ash, or otherwise obscured by the violence of the collapse.

Then if the residue would have been knocked off, what is currently on the cut steel? If any residue would have been knocked off, you would assume that what is seen in the picture was created AFTER the collapse.

 

[Totovader]

To further clarify: the reason to take out key load-bearing sections of any structure without immediately bringing it down is so that the weight of the upper part of the structure does the work for you, after you have sufficiently weakened the lower part. Bombs in the basement of the WTC would have served the purpose of weakening the foundation and lower structure in order to remove resistance from the upper floors collapsing. As everyone on here HAS to agree, the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speeds. This means there was little to no resistance encountered on the way down, and for the last time, bombs in the basement would have contributed to weakening the lower areas and removed that resistance. This helps to explain the free-fall collapse despite the WTC towers having 47 (off the top of my head at least) vertical columns.

If this were true, then the building would have weakened at the bottom, first.

As we can see from the following video- NOTHING ABOUT YOUR STATEMENT IS TRUE:



The collapse was not "almost free-fall", it did not weaken at the bottom, and it makes no sense at all to have bombs in the basement an hour before the horrible event shown here.

Are we to assume that you have abandoned this "bombs in the basement" nonsense- and instead are trying to work your way around to another angle?

Unless you have a rebuttal to the video provided here- your argument is dead.

 

[AZCat]

If I remember correctly, shaped charges of explosives, used in demolitions, can cut steel at angles like that. I saw a demolition expert explain it on video. I don't know how to find the video now. I was not suggesting that thermite made the cut, however, if it had, I would think your "residue" would have been knocked off, covered in ash, or otherwise obscured by the violence of the collapse.

Hmmmm.

You saw a video that purportedly shows shaped charges (not thermite) cutting steel at an angle but you can't provide the video.

You aren't suggesting that thermite (not shaped charges) was used, but if it did then all traces of it (according to you) would not be found.


I find your argument unacceptable. Your points are unsupported and unconnected with your conclusion. Please revise and resubmit.

 

[DavidJames]

I had the intelligence and lack of bias to come up with the idea on my own. I'm able to consider both sides of a theory and find the best fit.

Actually sparky, intelligence would have been to do research on places besides CT sites. You do show a clear bias towards the CT theories, you only pretend you don't.

I challenge you to spend some time doing research on sites debunking the CT theories. Take a CT claim, read the rebuttals and come here and present your thoughts for discussion. That would be intelligent. If you do that, you won't need to tell everyone how intelligent you are, it will be readily apparent.

That's assuming of course that your childish tantrums don't get you banned first.

 

[Norseman]

What then are we to make of this image, which seems to show a steel beam cut at an angle (something they do in professional demolitions to make the area above "slide' to the side) and the evidence of melted metal around the cut:

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

The site, which I have never seen until now, states:

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

Wouldn't we expect the broken steel to look more like it had been twisted, bent, and then broken off, rather than a perfect cut like that? Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_21923476329c54bc9a.jpg[/qimg]

Did you notice the part where I said cutting in my post:

I would think that the recovery workers would have noticed steel columns suspiciously cut in the towers core on the basement levels, when they were digging out and cutting the steel in the basement levels for transport.

You just posted a picture showing at least one column cut by recovery workers, and the other columns have been broken in their welding joints during the collapse. The columns in the towers were welded or bolted together or both from pre made short sections.

In addition to the information presented by others regarding this I recommend this:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/real-world-tests-cut-through-steel.html
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html

So I was talking about something different from what you posted above.

 

[brasil]

brasil:

People here are human, like you. As well, they are CONTINUOUSLY having to argue the same talking points over and over, and having to bang their heads off the brick wall over and over when the truthers (most of them) defy reasoning, ignore logic, ignore evidence, etc...

You are correct, it does take a bigger man to admit he was wrong. Good on you.

TAM

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

You are also posting personal attacks and if you do not stop you will face further sanctions.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[stateofgrace]

Did I say that "thermite made these cuts?" NO. I quoted a website and linked to a picture. I was not aware until now that there was video footage of a cleanup crew guy explaining how they cut the steel at an angle like that, however, BEFORE seeing that video just now I had the intelligence and lack of bias to come up with the idea on my own. I'm able to consider both sides of a theory and find the best fit. I am not "defending" anything the way just about everyone else on here is. I am looking for answers. I now consider that photo 99% debunked based on the video I was linked to (the 1% doubt is that I can't be sure that column did not end up that way due to the collapse, or that it's one of the columns the cleanup guy is referring to).

It takes a real man to admit he was wrong, or even likely wrong. I will not bring up that photo again. I wonder how many people on here can be as unbiased as I am?

You linked and quoted this website

What then are we to make of this image, which seems to show a steel beam cut at an angle (something they do in professional demolitions to make the area above "slide' to the side) and the evidence of melted metal around the cut:

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

The site, which I have never seen until now, states:

"Does this look right to you? The WTC core-columns 'cut' like carrot sticks? It clearly shows the core columns were 'cut' by explosives. Thermite / Thermate. The evidence of explosives is absolute. How do steel columns 'weakened by heat' end up cut with precision accuracy at the same level on every column?"

Wouldn't we expect the broken steel to look more like it had been twisted, bent, and then broken off, rather than a perfect cut like that? Does anyone have any evidence that this beam was cut during the cleanup, or whether it was found that way in the debris? Obviously that distinction is critical.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_21923476329c54bc9a.jpg[/URL]

You said the distinction was critical

Do not take it upon yourself to lecture me again please. I asked you a civil question based on your posts. You have now accepted you were wrong, so in future save your self righteous out rage.

 

[Totovader]

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

*Reported

 

[Garb]

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

Are you trying to corral pity in your favor here? You've been very disrespectful to most everyone on this forum, including myself.

And just because he labels your posts as fallacies does not make them any less true.

Are you aware of what a logical fallacy is?

 

[T.A.M.]

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

1. Honestly, he seems hostile toward you, though I have seen much worse (not necessarily by him) here. It is likely the result of (A) his fatigue at the moment in dealing with the issues, and (B) the fact that he has been debating with you on this thread for 9 pages now. In general toto is very civil, articulate, and patient.

2. It is unlikely the way he talks in real life, but this forum is a skeptics forum, and debating, along with its terminology is used quite frequently. He is also making, at times, valid points about your argumentation, in terms of content and style.

3. You have to have a thick skin to come here and take the opposing view to the majority. Similarly, if toto, I, or another debunker joined up and posted over at the Loose Change Forum, we would have to have such a robust outer layer.

TAM

 

[Slayhamlet]

Well at least you agree they are "talking points."

What is your personal opinion of Totovader's posts towards me ever since I joined this discussion, honestly? Are they furthering the understanding of this topic, or are they just pretentious, egotistical, condescending verbal masturbation.

I mean seriously, dissecting my posts into labels like "ad hominen," "circular reasoning," "appeal to pity," "logical fallacy," blah blah blah is really psycho and uptight. If that's the way this guy talks in real life, I'd hate to meet his friends.

It's neither "psycho" nor uptight. You barrage us with a constant stream of poorly reasoned claptrap. People point out to you how specifically your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny and you get indignant and make responses which break the membership agreement, instead of addressing the criticism. Have you read the membership agreement? Attacking people's poorly reasoned arguments is not against the membership agreement. Telling people to "go **** themselves" is.

 

[Totovader]

It's neither "psycho" nor uptight. You barrage us with a constant stream of poorly reasoned claptrap. People point out to you how specifically your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny and you get indignant and make responses which break the membership agreement, instead of addressing the criticism. Have you read the membership agreement? Attacking people's poorly reasoned arguments is not against the membership agreement. Telling people to "go **** themselves" is.

Coincidentally, I do asterisks myself frequently, I don't need brasils permission... I do need to let some of my professor friends know, however, that knowing logic and the fallacies makes them psycho. They may not be happy to hear that.

 

[brasil]

It's neither "psycho" nor uptight. You barrage us with a constant stream of poorly reasoned claptrap. People point out to you how specifically your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny and you get indignant and make responses which break the membership agreement, instead of addressing the criticism. Have you read the membership agreement? Attacking people's poorly reasoned arguments is not against the membership agreement. Telling people to "go **** themselves" is.

It is "psycho" and "uptight" because I've seen no evidence that we're conducting this thread as a formal debate. Are there a different set of rules applied by Totovader to my posts than everyone else's? I have to stick to rigid form and he and everyone else doesn't, all the while not addressing a single one of my arguments? It doesn't help me to be accused of making an "appeal to pity" in my last sentence when the first three paragraphs were about something that was on-topic. I also didn't tell anyone to do what you're saying. I believe you're guilty of a "fallacy of accident" in this case.

 

[Garb]

It is "psycho" and "uptight" because I've seen no evidence that we're conducting this thread as a formal debate. Are there a different set of rules applied by Totovader to my posts than everyone else's? I have to stick to rigid form and he and everyone else doesn't, all the while not addressing a single one of my arguments? It doesn't help me to be accused of making an "appeal to pity" in my last sentence when the first three paragraphs were about something that was on-topic. I also didn't tell anyone to do what you're saying. I believe you're guilty of a "fallacy of accident" in this case.

Just because it isn't a formal debate doesn't mean you can defy logic. If you are illogical you are going to be called on it. Plain and simple.