Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[thewholesoul]

I have answered all of your questions, you just feel that you can repost them in order to ignore my responses.

Either address my questions or move on.

you did not answer all my questions. was the total collapse, not the initial collapse, proven by the scientific method? yes or no.

if no, then how can you claim that the official hypothesis has been proven??

you did not answer the hypothetical questions in response to the totovader challenge either.

answer that simple yes or no and i will gladly answer all your questions amigo.

do you still stand by your claim that the official hypothesis has been proven?

 

[Totovader]

you did not answer all my questions. was the total collapse, not the initial collapse, proven by the scientific method? yes or no.

if no, then how can you claim that the official hypothesis has been proven??

you did not answer the hypothetical questions in response to the totovader challenge either.

answer that simple yes or no and i will gladly answer all your questions amigo.

do you still stand by your claim that the official hypothesis has been proven?

See previous post. There is no reason for me to continue to repeat myself. I do not stand by your characterizations of my statements- but that has already been addressed.

You need to either address my questions or move on.

If you do not address my questions, I will put you on ignore and request that the thread be moderated.

 

[chillzero]

Please report any Rule 4 violations for review. Thanks.

 

[Totovader]

Please report any Rule 4 violations for review. Thanks.

Did- quite a while ago, actually.

 

[thewholesoul]

If you do not address my questions, I will put you on ignore and request that the thread be moderated.

do it - put me on ignore. i wont loose any sleep over it.

you made a nasty lie that the offical hypothesis was proven - which is not true because the progressive collapse has not been proven yet by scale model or computer model.

you refuse to apologise for openly declaring that you are willing to "disrespect" family members because you "disagree" with them - you should be ashamed of yourself, sir.

and you justify disrespecting them because they are a minority and are not representative of all the family members - that makes you a moral coward, sir.

 

[Totovader]

do it - put me on ignore. i wont loose any sleep over it.

you made a nasty lie that the offical hypothesis was proven - which is not true because the progressive collapse has not been proven yet by scale model or computer model.

you refuse to apologise for openly declaring that you are willing to "disrespect" family members because you "disagree" with them - you should be ashamed of yourself, sir.

and you justify disrespecting them because they are a minority and are not representative of all the family members - that makes you a moral coward, sir.

Your characterizations of my statements are easily corrected by reviewing my statements. If anyone- for a minute- buys the nonsense you're selling, I challenge them to go read my statements in context and judge for themselves.

You are certainly in no position to claim I am a "moral coward", and are only doing so in order to avoid your own failures: you're going down kicking and screaming.

Good luck getting people to pay attention to you.

Welcome to ignore.

 

[Arus808]

toto, finally. you should have done that on page 1.

 

[Belz...]

obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven.

That's only if you can show that, once the collapse was initiated, it could be stopped.

if i was american i would glady pay. WHO do you think already paid for the investigation to date? the same people who pay for the police service, the firefighters, etc etc

Yes, but the investigation was ALREADY done. Asking for a NEW investigation, don't you think that it's the people who are ASKING for it who should pay ?

in order words YOU already contibuted to the investigation

Nope.

to date and YOU and other tax payers would contribute to another investigation if it indeed went ahead.

I would disagree, since one was already done and I am satisfied with its conclusions.

it is really lame that you cite a surmountable finacial obstacle as a reason against a reinvestigation. very lame. but i agree lets just drop it.

You have completely misunderstood, but that isn't surprising. I simply asked you WHO would pay for it. I never said it was a financial difficulty. I was asking who would be responsible for funding it.

i asked where would you prefer - if you had the choice - your taxes to go? (a) reinvestigation into 911 or (b) towards the development of nuclear weapons? i would prefer the former, what would you prefer? its a straightforward question.

Nuclear weapons sure would be more useful than a new investigation into 9/11.

ok so now your sayng (i presume) that america is developing nuclear weapons but "we" the average american tax payer is not developing them.

No, that is definitely not what I'm saying. Perhaps you should check some of your assumptions before you procede with your reply.

i admitted i was wrong and retracted the statment.

Not when you asked him to retract it first. You admitted it was wrong but did NOT retract it. THAT was what I said was immature.

 

[Belz...]

If it cannot be proven true then it must be false.

[...]

by insisting that the official hypothesis cannot be proven by any form of experimentation you are implicitly rejecting the scientific method.

I think you should go to science class before you make inane statements like this.

 

[Belz...]

a posteriori - the explosives hypothesis is a far more plausible explanation than a fire and gravity driven collapse.

Huh ? Why ? Doesn't the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos, or the fact that no trace of explosives were found, mean something to you ?

how do i know that? well when you ask yourself how many steel frame buildings came down through fire and gravity as opposed to how many steel frame buildings have been brought down by explosives.

How is that relevant, in any way, shape or form ?

once you answer this question honestly you will realize that on a posteriori grounds the explosive hypothesis is far more plausible as a means to demolish a steel frame building or cause a progressive global collapse.

Of course, that's ASSUMING that someone WANTED to demolish the building that way. Aren't you tired of arguing in circles ?

NIST's Report states that its first objective is to "determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed." The Report does not fulfill that objective.

How so, since it explains how the collapse initiated ?

Or do you really contend that something could've stopped it ?

so total collapse was proven?

Go to Manhattan. Look for the towers.

you could at least apologise about your willingness to "disrespect" family members because you may "disagree" with them. do you not have an ounce of civilty?

Appeal to emotion.

 

[Belz...]

do it - put me on ignore. i wont loose any sleep over it.

How the hell can someone unscrew sleep ?

 

[DGM]

How the hell can someone unscrew sleep ?

Haven't you ever heard anyone say "sleep tight"?

 

[thewholesoul]

(i said) obviously no experimnets have been conducted beyond the initial collapse which is why the official hypothesis remains largely unproven.

That's only if you can show that, once the collapse was initiated, it could be stopped.

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

it is those who endorse the official hypothesis that need to prove that once the initial collapse has started it could not have been stopped.

it is the person who asserts or otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition - i.e. that global callapse ensued from the initial collapse - bear the burden of proof.

if or when the official hypothesis is proven i will accept it. if however it is not proven then the official hypothesis must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

 

[thewholesoul]

I think you should go to science class before you make inane statements like this.

please eloborate

 

[beachnut]

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

it is those who endorse the official hypothesis that need to prove that once the initial collapse has started it could not have been stopped.

it is the person who asserts or otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition - i.e. that global callapse ensued from the initial collapse - bear the burden of proof.

if or when the official hypothesis is proven i will accept it. if however it is not proven then the official hypothesis must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

NO, you are wrong again. There is visual proof! Darn. Too bad, but there is visual proof of impact, fire, and collapse.

Therefore your crazy ideas of some other story, have to be proven with evidence and facts, not hand waving, hearsay and lies. Nice try but facts are needed, and you have to prove your ideas. No facts, then take your ideas to some fantasy forum.

 

[A W Smith]

the fact that the official hypothesis remains unproven is because it has not been tested either through scale models or computer models.

it is those who endorse the official hypothesis that need to prove that once the initial collapse has started it could not have been stopped.

it is the person who asserts or otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition - i.e. that global callapse ensued from the initial collapse - bear the burden of proof.

if or when the official hypothesis is proven i will accept it. if however it is not proven then the official hypothesis must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

the official hypothesis was proven by the terrorists themselves on the second tower, same concept. same day, identical result. get over it

 

[thewholesoul]

Huh ? Why ? Doesn't the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos, or the fact that no trace of explosives were found, mean something to you?

how many people have i presented in this thread that claimed that they heard an "explosion"??????????????

whats your view on Assistant comissioner Stephan Gregory's experinece “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”

so it would appear my friend that people both heard and saw what they percieved to be an explosion.

moreover there are plenty of you tube videos where you can hear explosions. there are plenty of tv reporters reporting that they heard explosions.

your statement above is baffling.

How so, since it explains how the collapse initiated?
Or do you really contend that something could've stopped it ?

yes i contend that the intact section below the impact zone should have arrested the initial collapse. you contend that it could not have arrested the initial collapse - so prove your hypothesis because your hypothesis is the only hypothesis under investigation. if the official hypothesis cannot be proven then it must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

Go to Manhattan. Look for the towers.

what a lame response. your saying that because there is no tower standing, that both towers displayed a global collapse that somehow that proves their global collapse was caused by gravity. what a joke.

i could just as easily argue that because there is no towers in Manhattan that that proves global collapse was caused by explosives. i would not make this argument however because it is absurd pointing to a consequence as proof of the hypothetical cause!!

 

[thewholesoul]

Huh ? Why ? Doesn't the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos, or the fact that no trace of explosives were found, mean something to you?

how many people have i presented in this thread that claimed that they heard an "explosion"??????????????

whats your view on Assistant comissioner Stephan Gregory's experinece “i thought that i saw lower level flashes...(at) the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building”

so it would appear my friend that people both heard and saw what they percieved to be an explosion.

moreover there are plenty of you tube videos where you can hear explosions. there are plenty of tv reporters reporting that they heard explosions.

as for the no trace of explosives i will address that point on a latter stage.

your statement above is baffling.

How so, since it explains how the collapse initiated?
Or do you really contend that something could've stopped it ?

yes i contend that the intact section below the impact zone should have arrested the initial collapse. you contend that it could not have arrested the initial collapse - so prove your hypothesis because your hypothesis is the only hypothesis under investigation. if the official hypothesis cannot be proven then it must be abandoned and a new working hypothesis should take its place.

Go to Manhattan. Look for the towers.

what a lame response. your saying that because there is no tower standing, that both towers displayed a global collapse that somehow that proves their global collapse was caused by gravity. what a joke.

i could just as easily argue that because there is no towers in Manhattan that that proves global collapse was caused by explosives. i would not make this argument however because it is absurd pointing to a consequence as proof of the hypothetical cause!!

 

[thewholesoul]

the official hypothesis was proven by the terrorists themselves on the south tower, same concept. same day, identical result. get over it

hahahahhaha - the terrorists proved the official hypothesis of global collapse

what is the major malfunction of people in this room??

news flash

- the official hypothesis has not been proven
- the official hypothesis has not been proven

get over it.

pointing out the "same result" does not prove that gravity caused the total collapse. THERE HAS BEEN NO TEST THAT PROVED THE OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS.

if your saying terrorists proved total collapse of te twin towers then explain to me please did they employ the scientific method??? hahahhahah

 

[thewholesoul]

NO, you are wrong again. There is visual proof! Darn. Too bad, but there is visual proof of impact, fire, and collapse.

Therefore your crazy ideas of some other story, have to be proven with evidence and facts, not hand waving, hearsay and lies. Nice try but facts are needed, and you have to prove your ideas. No facts, then take your ideas to some fantasy forum.

this is a fantasy forum if your suggesting that observing the total collapse of the twin towers proves that it was caused by gravity!!!

according to my "visual proof" the pulverisation and total collapse was caused by demoltion.

hypothesis are proven throught the scientific method.