ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc1

Reply
Old 26th May 2008, 01:09 PM   #321
quicknthedead
Thinker
 
quicknthedead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
The issue of how fuel could have made it to the Zone 1 shafts is fairly easy to resolve.

Here is the question that TWS' asked:



Now here is a 3d rendering of the towers elevator shafts.

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o...evators-3d.jpg

Note that the plane's impact, from the NIST simulations, would have intersected and potentially dumped large quantities of fuel in the N, O and P sets of elevator shafts (N = Mid Low Rise, 6 elevators serving 78 and 87-93, O = Mid High Rise, 6 elevators serving 78 and 94-99, P = High Rise, 6 elevators serving 78 and 100-107)

The amount of fuel dumped into the building was far more than would have burned up during the initial fireball, ~ 10,000 gallons, with ~8,000 gallons on floors 93-97 (NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Table 7-5) and a lot of this fuel would have expended its momentum in the core area (NCSTAR 1-2 - Fig 7-8). Its no great stretch to presume that a thousand or so gallons of fuel may have gone down the local Zone 3 elevator shafts as well as the Express and Freight elevator shafts.

But, as the question is about the fuel in the Zone 3 shafts, the salient point is that regardless of which floors they served, the Zone 3 elevators all ran in shafts that terminated on the 78th floor.

Which could easily explain the transfer to the Zone 1 shafts.

There were the C bank of 8 massive (10,000 lb capacity) Express Shuttles running from the lobby to the 78th floor (with their lift equipment above on the 79th floor) and there were also 3 10,000 lb capacity InterZone shuttles running from the 78th floor to the 44th floor where they overlapped with the B bank of 8 10,000 lb capacity Express shuttles that went from the 44th floor to the Lobby.

Thus while these various express elevators don't share the same vertical shafts as the Zone 3 local elevators, it is quite logical to presume that when a thousand or more gallons of jet fuel hit the bottom of the local shafts on the 78th floor that several hundreds or more gallons of jet fuel, at least, is going to wash over and down one or more of these express shafts that share the 78th floor and DO go to the lobby.
Yes, it is possible and believable, especially in view of the fireballs that occurred. (I was wondering when you would finally post this information you had. )

Thanks, adoucette. Excellent work on your part.
__________________
“It is painful enough to discover with what unconcern they speak of war and threaten it. I have seen enough of it to make me look upon it as the sum of all evils.”
_______Gen. Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

Last edited by quicknthedead; 26th May 2008 at 01:12 PM.
quicknthedead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2008, 04:04 PM   #322
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
The issue of how fuel could have made it to the Zone 1 shafts is fairly easy to resolve.

Here is the question that TWS' asked:



Now here is a 3d rendering of the towers elevator shafts.

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o...evators-3d.jpg

Note that the plane's impact, from the NIST simulations, would have intersected and potentially dumped large quantities of fuel in the N, O and P sets of elevator shafts (N = Mid Low Rise, 6 elevators serving 78 and 87-93, O = Mid High Rise, 6 elevators serving 78 and 94-99, P = High Rise, 6 elevators serving 78 and 100-107)

The amount of fuel dumped into the building was far more than would have burned up during the initial fireball, ~ 10,000 gallons, with ~8,000 gallons on floors 93-97 (NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Table 7-5) and a lot of this fuel would have expended its momentum in the core area (NCSTAR 1-2 - Fig 7-8). Its no great stretch to presume that a thousand or so gallons of fuel may have gone down the local Zone 3 elevator shafts as well as the Express and Freight elevator shafts.

But, as the question is about the fuel in the Zone 3 shafts, the salient point is that regardless of which floors they served, the Zone 3 elevators all ran in shafts that terminated on the 78th floor.

Which could easily explain the transfer to the Zone 1 shafts.

There were the C bank of 8 massive (10,000 lb capacity) Express Shuttles running from the lobby to the 78th floor (with their lift equipment above on the 79th floor) and there were also 3 10,000 lb capacity InterZone shuttles running from the 78th floor to the 44th floor where they overlapped with the B bank of 8 10,000 lb capacity Express shuttles that went from the 44th floor to the Lobby.

Thus while these various express elevators don't share the same vertical shafts as the Zone 3 local elevators, it is quite logical to presume that when a thousand or more gallons of jet fuel hit the bottom of the local shafts on the 78th floor that several hundreds or more gallons of jet fuel, at least, is going to wash over and down one or more of these express shafts that share the 78th floor and DO go to the lobby.
But the problem is that the elevator pits of the Zone 3 local elevators are on Floor 77, and some even down to floor 76.

Take a look at the drawing "Zone3ElevationsBanksABCD" here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ans/table.html

And take a look at the corresponding floor core plans as well.

But there are some other scenarios as well.
Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2008, 06:21 PM   #323
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Let's pretend for a second that we can't figure out how the fuel or fireballs got down the elevator shafts. Does that prove bombs were used?
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2008, 11:33 PM   #324
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
There is no "official story". There is a generally accepted version of events
what a penatrating semantical argument

the official version of events is
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
is simple, straightforward, internally consistent, and relies on very few unknown entities.
ok, then answer my upcoming post.

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Then there are theories such as yours that are needlessly complicated
there was a bomb in the basement. sounds real simple to me

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
and filled with ad hoc explanations that serve no purpose but to bolster your weak arguments.
all you do is talk...thats all

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Any rational person would accept the first version over the second any day
well provide your REASONS then

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
regardless of your attempts to complicate the issue.
i am sorry my rational arguments that you are clearly unable to deal with complicate you

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
This "problem of resistance" relies on a belief that you understand the mechanics of the plane crash and subsequent side effects perfectly.
you failed to undertsand what the problem of resistence was.

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
YOUR fallacy is both a strawman (no one has argued that bombs had never been used in the building) and a non sequitur (it doesn't follow that if bombs were used in the building once, then they were used on 9/11).
at last, you make good point. i accept.

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
It is known that there was a plane crash at the tower on 9/11. Since a plane crash is a chaotic event that doesn't happen often, the behavior of a building that is struck by a plane is unpredictable, therefore it is irrational to say that certain physically plausible things CAN'T have happened. This is particularly true if your knowledge of the building's structure is incomplete. I'm willing to bet the farm that it is.
wrong. if you understood my argument in post 237 i am saying that the official version of events specifically in relaton to the burn injuries of Felipe David are impossible. so before you go betting your farm try understanding my argument first.

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
The bomb is an unnecessary entity. Period.
but if his burn injuries cannot POSSIBLY be explained by a fireball, jet fuel or falling debris then we must consider bombs as a possible cause for David's injuries.

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Unless I'm mistaken, only two kinds of bombs create fireballs:

1. Fuel-air bombs, which would be useless inside a building
2. Movie pyrotechnics, which create fireballs because they look cool
Madrid train bombing produced a huge fireball, see http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EssXKHQISm8
Which resulted in various injuries including burn injuries, read http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15693992
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2008, 11:39 PM   #325
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
thewholesoul

What was the purpose of the bombs you claim were in the basement?
i have touched on that subject inprevious posts.

so too has swing dangler.

Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
Bolded above. This is not how debate works. Stop posting it, it makes you look childish.
Yes it is.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2008, 11:40 PM   #326
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
This is silly. Firstly, neither jet fuel nor a fireball is in any way similar to a cannon ball .
only because you misunderstood my point. i was comparing the cannon ball with a counterweight not a fireball.

Originally Posted by LashL View Post
There are numerous paths that the fuel and fireballs could and would, therefore, take
according to NIST there are only three. 6 7 and 50

Originally Posted by LashL View Post
It's as though you think that fuel and fireballs could only travel downward in a couple of shafts that you imagine are hermetically sealed or something, and that is completely unrealistic.
yes fuel can only fall downwards in an elevator shaft

if that shaft is closed then it will require an explosion in order to exit that shaft. but the fuel required to create explosion will be consumed. and the plane only deposited the jet fuel once so there will not be a resupply of falling fuel.

Last edited by thewholesoul; 29th May 2008 at 01:29 AM.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 12:07 AM   #327
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why would they have to be? They're on their own rails and could have passed by easily. I don't see how there would be a requirement that they would have to damage the cars.
you forget that the planes severed through the entire shaft which means that the separate rail would also be severed through along with the cables. if this occured then yes, the counterweights could well have fallen upon the cars within the shaft below.

given that the elevator disaster in the Empire State building involving freefalling counterweights happened many years prior to the towers construction i would presume that the towers had some saftey measures to prevent a freefalling counterweight. can you confirm that no such safety measures existed?

To be honest i dont really care if the counterwieghts fell or not because they cannot explain all the phenomena before the fireball arrived.

Q: how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
A: Morelli tried to take the stairs up to the lobby of the North Tower, but they were blocked by fallen debris.
He tried to take the stairs up to the lobby from the B4 level. That does not explain the FIRST explosion he heard above him. Moreover he tried to take the stairs after the fireball arrived. I do not dispute the fact that debris fell. I am simply saying that it cannot account for all the phenomena that occured prior to the arrival of the fireball. See my post #288

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
the flimsy shaft walls are not going to contain anything of significant mass.
like a free falling elevator?

But go into greater detail. How does the falling debris take a horizontal turn?

Last edited by thewholesoul; 29th May 2008 at 01:32 AM.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 12:38 AM   #328
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
With respect to the antagonist, however, I have a feeling that expecting him to accept this continued refutation is simply not realistice. But I'd love to be proven wrong.
hey big mac, try refute my following post.

Next you responded to the following two questions i posed to DGM

Quote:
but lets assume that the counterweight did fall. can you help me to answer the following questions:
- how come the cars 6 7 and 50 were not destroyed by the falling weight?
- how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Counterweights travel in an entirely different space than the elevator itself. They pass beside each other. Otherwise you would require a shaft twice as high as the highest floor serviced. This is Not A Good Design.
I knew that already thats why i posted this link http://science.howstuffworks.com/elevator3.htm so people like you wouldnt try describe what i already knew. and no, the counter weights are not in a “entirely different space", they are in the SAME SHAFT.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
And localizing loud sounds is difficult under the best of conditions.
I think a person can distinquish between a noise from above and a noise from below. the bottom line is the explosion heard by Morelli did not come from the elevator shaft. and falling debris cannot take horizontal turns.

When every witness on B1 says the explosion came from below, i tend to believe them…unless that it is you can provide some reasonable explanation which i seriousñly doubt you can.

Also it is not just a matter of “hearing” loud explosions: for example rodriguez claims the basment explosion pushed them upwards in the air” which is consistent with an explosion coming from below http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=wIZtqKiidlo moreover Phillip Morelli was thrown downwards to the floor which is consistent with hearing an explosion from above.

so citing difficulties in "localizing loud sounds" is a reductionsit and untimately inadequate approach

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
There were a great many loud things going on all at once, in a confined space. There are any number of explanations.
ok name them.

but let us just try and explain the FIRST basement explosion. i would be really happy to hear any explanation you have in that brilliant mind of yours.

so instead of answering my two relatively straighforward questions you dance around suggesting that you could possibly explain them but you never actually do. good job

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I honestly think you need to work on this a whole lot longer before pretending to be knowledgeable in the subject.
You sound arrogant.

Why dont you use that big brain of yours and try refute my following post.

peace

Last edited by thewholesoul; 29th May 2008 at 01:42 AM.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 01:07 AM   #329
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
thewholesoul: debunking debunkers one bunk at a time

William Rodriguez: "How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man's arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?"

William was right and the following explains why.

[Plane impacts North Tower]

(1) Cables are severed + jet fuel is dispersed down shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking approx. 10s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1
(4) Car 50 was above Felipe David on B1 when he was burnt by an explosion below

Therefore, whatever caused the explosion below Felipe David could not possibly have been caused by jet fuel. (or descending fireball)

(1a) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160)

(1b) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (2.4)

(1c) http://911stories.googlepages.com/de...rsioninthetowe

(2a) “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” http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...6/lklw.00.html

(2b) “The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors” http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/...riffiths_x.htm

(2c) Its hard to know exactly how long it took car 50 to reach B1. From Griffiths testimony we learn that the elevator ascended for 5-7 seconds. But let us only use the most generous estimation, that being 7 seconds. Freight elevators in the twin towers were gearless traction machines and could reach speeds of roughly 10 m/s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevato...ist_mechanisms car 50 then ascended 7 seconds at 10m/s thus it ascended approx 70m. Each floor is approx. 3.8m so 70m = approx. 18 floors. From Griffith’s testimony we learn that the elevator fell at least 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught. So that fits in nicely.

To my mind, car 50 ascended 18 floors. when the cables were cut it then free falled 15-16 floors before the emergency brakes caught and the car skidded a further 2-3 floors before terminating just below B1. So I would estimate that it took car 50 no more than 10 seconds to reach B1. I welcome anyone with precise calculations based on the information we already possess.

(3) Flight AA 11 impacted from 93rd to 98th floor. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf(PDF pg. 160) 93 floors = 388m . Jet fuel falls 9.1m/s http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...6446.Ph.r.html 388/9.1 = 43 seconds. Taking overpressure into consideration = 30 seconds.

(4a) Standing in front of the freight elevator on B1 Felipe David recalls:
Quote:
The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot. I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned. I sat there for a couple of seconds on the floor and felt like I was going to die, saying to myself 'God, please give me strength
http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts%2Clobb
A free-falling elevator car is audibly detectable. Felipe however did not hear the car falling towards him. That means that the cables were not cut yet from the impact of flight 11 and that car 50 was above him.

(4b) Walking beside freight elevator Phillip Morelli B4 recalls:
Quote:
that's when I got blown. The impact of the explosion or whatever happened threw me to the floor. And that’s when everything started happenin'. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was, you just assumed something fell over in the loading dock. Something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened then all of a sudden you just felt the floor movin' and you get up... the walls, you know now I'm hearing that the main freight car, the elevators, you know what I mean fell down so I was right near the main freight car so I assumed what that was. Then you heard that [the main feight car] comin' towards ya
http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts%2Clobb

We know that elevator car 50 did free fall down the freight elevator shaft so it seems very likely that Morelli’s assumption was correct. Given that the first explosion was heard below David and above Morelli and also given the behaviour of the building following the explosion in both David’s and Morelli’s testimony it seems reasonable to assume that they were in fact describing the same explosion.

Assuming then that it was the same explosion we know that car 50 was above David because Morelli heard the freight car falling for some time after the explosion had occured. Now the obvious reason David did not notice or report hearing a freight car falling after the explosion is because he was lying on the floor in extreme pain thinking he was going to die.

(4c) Because the occupants of car 50 did not receive burn injuries from intense heat it seems highly likely that car 50 was some distance above David and the explosion from below which produced the intense heat that burnt David.

(4d) In post #138, I argue that the testimony from Marlene Cruz suggests that the explosion she first heard came from below rather than above the freight elevator car 50. If this is true, coupled with the fact she did not receive burn injuries then this would further support the claim that car 50 was some distance above David at the time of the basment explosion.

[Conclusion]
According to the above argument the official fireball explanation and the unofficial JREF unignited jet fuel explanation must be rejected because they are simply NOT POSSIBLE because the jet fuel cannot physically descend the 90+ floors quick enough to cause an explaoion below car 50 before it reaches B1. This is essentially the problem implicit in william rodriguez's quotation above. The falling debris explanation by Norseman can also be dismissed for the simple reason that falling debirs does not burn peoples skin. so lets see it again:

[Plane impacts North Tower]

(1) Cables are severed + jet fuel is dispersed down shaft
(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking approx. 10s to reach B1
(3) Jet fuel falls 93 floors taking approx. 30s to reach B1
(4) Car 50 was above Felipe David on B1 when he was burnt by an explosion below

Therefore, whatever caused the explosion below Felipe David could not possibly have been caused by jet fuel. (or descending fireball)

if anyone in this forum believes they can refute this argument please address the premises upon which the conclusion logically follows. That funk de fino is how debate works.

Bombs in the basment may be implausible to many in this room, but i will take implausible over impossible every single time. And so should any RATIONAL human being.

peace

Last edited by thewholesoul; 29th May 2008 at 01:46 AM.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 01:14 AM   #330
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
i have touched on that subject inprevious posts.
Touch on it again please. What need was there for bombs in the basement and what did they add to what happened that day? Were there bombs in the basement of both towers?

Originally Posted by TWS
so too has swing dangler.
His posts tend to all be serious failures, please forgive me if I ignore them.

Originally Posted by TWS
Yes it is.
Wrong. Failure to reply can mean numerous things. Just because someone fails to reply does not make your argument correct or mean your opponent agrees.

If you claimed you could read my mind, the fact that I did not reply or refute it does not make that claim correct. get it?

It would help your case immensely if you could just bring us some evidence instead of your twisted interpretation of witness testimonies and your speculation.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 07:20 AM   #331
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
We know that elevator car 50 did free fall down the freight elevator shaft so it seems very likely that Morelli’s assumption was correct. Given that the first explosion was heard below David and above Morelli and also given the behaviour of the building following the explosion in both David’s and Morelli’s testimony it seems reasonable to assume that they were in fact describing the same explosion.
If I understand you correctly thewholesoul, this bomb explosion of yours now occurred on either B2 or B3. And your only evidence for this is that David Felipe believes that he heard an explosion below him. Do I have to remind you of Mike McQuaid and problems of correctly locating the source of a sound inside a building.

The account of Felipe David is entirely consistent with the sequence of events caused by Flight 11's impact into the building.

And where are all the witnesses describing the damage down on B2 and B3?

You are making extraordinary claims here thewholesoul, claims that need extraordinary evidence.
Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 07:57 AM   #332
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
SO the only evidence of a bomb is simply someone heard an explosion? And I imagine thewholesoul wonders why people laugh and mock him.

Bombs which served absolutely no purpose in the collapse of the towers. I guess it was just for dramatic effect. Imagine the effort they went to to set off bombs at the precise time the planes impacted and only for show. Gosh, we're all impressed down here!
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 08:10 AM   #333
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Bombs in the basement were used in the same way that spooky music is used in monster movies; it's all about effect, baby!
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 29th May 2008 at 08:10 AM.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 08:18 AM   #334
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
It should also be noted that just because one heard an explosion from a certain direction, does not mean the explosion actually came from that direction. Especially in a building like that where the sound is traveling mostly through the material and not the air. Not to mention the low frequencies involved which are omni directional while the higher directional frequencies are blocked by the concrete and steel.

Soul's entire argument is based on major major assumptions. And then he uses those assumptions to simply inject one big speculation based on much MUCH less evidence than that which he is calling incorrect based on some assumptions.

In short, his argument is a joke.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 10:30 AM   #335
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,522
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
and falling debris cannot take horizontal turns.
You keep saying that, and yet it's clearly not true. Falling debris can easily hit an obstruction and be deflected horizontally.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 04:22 PM   #336
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
If I understand you correctly thewholesoul, this bomb explosion of yours now occurred on either B2 or B3. And your only evidence for this is that David Felipe believes that he heard an explosion below him.
wrong.

Rodriguez and said Anthony Saltamachia, and presumably the 14 other occupants in that room would when asked reaffirm that an explosion came from below, somewhere in the mechanical room. these would all corroborate Felipe David's testimony.

several people in the B4 claim the explosion came from above such as Phillip Morelli, Hursley Lever, and Sanchez et cetera. which again further corroborate Felipe Davids testimony. and the testimony of Marlene Cruz seems to suggest that the explosion came from below also.

so yes i would say the bomb went off somewhere in the B2-3 basment. what we dont have unfortunately is any testimony from people in the B2 basement, all we have is testimony from Giambanco
Quote:
I could see through the cracks we were between B-2 and B-3. We were both screaming and afraid. I remember seeing through the slot of the elevator and seeing other people running and screaming
Giambanco's testimony and the behaviour of people who were actually in B2-3 again reinforces Felipe's testimony.

smoke, burn victims, fireballs, running and screaming are all typical of an undergorund explosion; watch the video of the madrid train bomb and you will see all the above.

the bottom line is Norseman: i have eliminated through simple logic the possibility that this first explosion could have been caused by a fireball or jet fuel. the bottom line is you are unable to refute the premises upon which i arrived at this conclusion. but still you resist any alternative explanation that easily, easily explains the phenomena described in the basment prior to the arrival of the fireball.

i know it emans absolutely nothing to you that many people that day were convicned it was a bomb. granted that by no means proves it was a bomb but once we have eliminated any other possibility , and i have in post 329, then bombs must be considered.

Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
Do I have to remind you of Mike McQuaid and problems of correctly locating the source of a sound inside a building.
Not to belittle Mike McQuaid but he was only one account. it would be very interesting to have further testimony from that particular floor. The level of corroboration in the basement level is quite another matter.

as i said to Mackey, it is not just a matter of hearing but also "feeling" an explosion. so when people feel the floor vibrating or pushing them upwards it tends to support their claim that the explosion came from below.

but when we take a second look at Mike McQuaids account and take it on face value who is to say that an explosion didn't occur in the mechanical room below him? explosions in the mechanical room were an ongoing theme that day and a detonation below could arguably be more noticable than a deflagration of 2-3psi a few floors above.

but let us even say you are right Norseman. let us assume the explosion felipe heard came from above. how do you propose that refutes my post 329? that fireball still has to pass car 50 undetected, right? perhaps you may wish to abandon the official explanation like many other sin this forum have already done and endorse the unignited jet fuel explanation, but then you will have to explain how it could arrive before the falling elevator in less than 10 secs from 90+floor. why dont you go and make that argument?

Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
The account of Felipe David is entirely consistent with the sequence of events caused by Flight 11's impact into the building.
REALLY? seriously my friend how can you still cling onto that belief after reading post 329? how can you still hold onto that belief when you are unable to refute the premises in post 329? you know i also debate religious folk and you are diplaying the very same symptoms of denial when faced with simple logic.


post 329 argues that the fireball and jet fuel explanation are impossible, not improbable, unlikely, impossible. i am sorry that you find the conclusion of that psot disturbing and troubling but thats not my fault. and to argue that well maybe there is a chance Felipe was wrong and the explosion he heard came from above is hardly a rebuttal, is it?

this: the plane hit, fireball travelled down elevator shaft, felipe got bunt has be shown to be impossible because car 50 was above felipe when he felt the explosion below. besides: bomb in the basment exploded and burnt felipe is equally consistent.

moreover given the fact that felipe was burnt before the freball arrived to basement i am assuming that you have conceded and ruled out your previous explanation as falling debris as the cause of his injuries.

Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
And where are all the witnesses describing the damage down on B2 and B3?.
i dont know. i asked the same question once. all we have is giambanco's testmony and screaming and running and such behaviour is entirely consistent with a bomb. furthermroe whatever caused them to behave in such a manner occured before the fireball arrived.

Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
You are making extraordinary claims here thewholesoul, claims that need extraordinary evidence.
no i am not. i am making sober ordinary claims supported by reasoned logic and an objective appraisal of all testimony. even if i had a video camera in the basment that day which showed an explosive detonation you would still deny that there was a bomb in the basement.

as predicted you are either unable ior unwilling to tackle my argument in a logical format e.g. 2a is false because....x, y, z .

the truth is my conclusion follows from my premises and casting doubt upon the location of a sound (i.e. felipe could be wrong) reiterating your debunked conviction (i.e. the official story is consistent with felipe's injuries)
is hardly a rebuttal. but no disrespect Norseman, i dont expect a rebutall from anyone in this forum that is why i will be moving onto a new thread shortly.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 04:54 PM   #337
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
JREF forum's quality

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
SO the only evidence of a bomb is simply someone heard an explosion?
wrong

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
And I imagine thewholesoul wonders why people laugh and mock him.
not when their name is Jonnyclueless

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
Bombs which served absolutely no purpose in the collapse of the towers.
although off topic i may address this point again

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
I guess it was just for dramatic effect.
keep guessing

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
Imagine the effort they went to to set off bombs at the precise time the planes impacted
truly an impossible and unimaginable feat

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
and only for show
bingo! you cracked it. why didnt i think of that?

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
Gosh, we're all impressed down here!
me too, you patently unable to refute the premises in my post 329.

Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Bombs in the basement were used in the same way that spooky music is used in monster movies; it's all about effect, baby!
another quality JREF forum response

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
It should also be noted that just because one heard an explosion from a certain direction, does not mean the explosion actually came from that direction.
is that a fact sherlock? so what about the [many] others...they are all wrong? what about the people in B2-3 running and screaming, i suppose that must have been the scary music in the movie, right?

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
Especially in a building like that where the sound is traveling mostly through the material and not the air.
so in other buildings sound travels mostly through air and not material?

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
Not to mention the low frequencies involved which are omni directional while the higher directional frequencies are blocked by the concrete and steel.
ooohhhhh

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
Soul's entire argument is based on major major assumptions.
what assumptions? that david heard the explosion from below? post 329 is not based on that. post 329 is based on the fact that a droplet of liquid takes 30 secs to fall 90+floors.

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
And then he uses those assumptions to simply inject one big speculation based on much MUCH less evidence than that which he is calling incorrect based on some assumptions.
bla bla bla yakedy smackedy

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
In short, his argument is a joke.
and you're the punch line
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 05:00 PM   #338
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
SO the only evidence of a bomb is simply someone heard an explosion? And I imagine thewholesoul wonders why people laugh and mock him.

Bombs which served absolutely no purpose in the collapse of the towers. I guess it was just for dramatic effect. Imagine the effort they went to to set off bombs at the precise time the planes impacted and only for show. Gosh, we're all impressed down here!
Yep. In order for their complicated theories to work, they have to make it more complicated.
Complication atop complication until you reach the absurd.
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 05:05 PM   #339
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
You keep saying that, and yet it's clearly not true. Falling debris can easily hit an obstruction and be deflected horizontally.
and i will keep saying it.

if you drop a counterweight it will not get deflected from a hollow elevator car - news flash - it will go right through it much like a cannon ball would.

even after falling 90+ floors the debris that did fall on car 50 was not heavy enough to penetrated the ceiling of the car. this means that the debris that fell was not particularly heavy. i agree that this debris would naturally be deflected but because it could not penetrate the ceiling of a hollow elevator car i seriously doubt it could have burst through an elevator shaft wall given the fact that most of its energy was expended upon impact with the elevator car.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 05:08 PM   #340
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by TexasJack View Post
Yep. In order for their complicated theories to work, they have to make it more complicated.
Complication atop complication until you reach the absurd.
BOMB-IN-BASEMENT ouch my head hurts even tpying those words

another quality JREF response!
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 05:48 PM   #341
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
BOMB-IN-BASEMENT ouch my head hurts even tpying those words

another quality JREF response!
Thank You.
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 06:39 PM   #342
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,414
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
only because you misunderstood my point. i was comparing the cannon ball with a counterweight not a fireball.



according to NIST there are only three. 6 7 and 50



yes fuel can only fall downwards in an elevator shaft

if that shaft is closed then it will require an explosion in order to exit that shaft. but the fuel required to create explosion will be consumed. and the plane only deposited the jet fuel once so there will not be a resupply of falling fuel.

That is yet another mighty fine example of cherrypicking for purposes of obfuscation by you, thewholesoul. It would almost be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic, obvious, and dishonest.

Keep it up and you might earn the Truther(tm) Badge of Merit yet!

Unfortunately, all it gets you in the real world is noted among intelligent people as a dishonest troll.

Last edited by LashL; 29th May 2008 at 06:48 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 06:49 PM   #343
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
BOMB-IN-BASEMENT ouch my head hurts even tpying those words

another quality JREF response!
UNICORN-IN-BASEMENT is just as easy to say. Proving the unicorn existed and why it would be there is the complicated part.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 07:41 PM   #344
adoucette
Scholar
 
adoucette's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
and i will keep saying it.

if you drop a counterweight it will not get deflected from a hollow elevator car - news flash - it will go right through it much like a cannon ball would.

even after falling 90+ floors the debris that did fall on car 50 was not heavy enough to penetrated the ceiling of the car. this means that the debris that fell was not particularly heavy. i agree that this debris would naturally be deflected but because it could not penetrate the ceiling of a hollow elevator car i seriously doubt it could have burst through an elevator shaft wall given the fact that most of its energy was expended upon impact with the elevator car.
There would be cables attached to the counterweight, so it isn't at all like a cannon ball.

The Elevator cars, designed to hold 10,000 lbs and be lifted at 1,600 ft per minute weren't built like tin cans.

The elevator shafts however WERE just two layers of SheetRock.
__________________
If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.
adoucette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 09:07 PM   #345
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
BOMB-IN-BASEMENT ouch my head hurts even tpying those words

another quality JREF response!
Clearly you've but a lo of thought into this theory of yours.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 10:49 PM   #346
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
ad hominem

Originally Posted by LashL View Post
That is yet another mighty fine example of cherrypicking for purposes of obfuscation by you, thewholesoul. It would almost be humorous if it wasn't so pathetic, obvious, and dishonest.

Keep it up and you might earn the Truther(tm) Badge of Merit yet!

Unfortunately, all it gets you in the real world is noted among intelligent people as a dishonest troll.
Are such ad hominem - attacks your standard of "debunking" here?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2008, 10:53 PM   #347
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,414
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Are such ad hominem - attacks your standard of "debunking" here?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Oh, look, yet another newcomer whose very first post happens to be, quite innocently, I'm sure, in this particular sub-forum and this particular thread, who doesn't have a clue about what the ad hominem logical fallacy actually is.

How utterly unsurprising.

Here's an idea: how about you educate yourself about logical fallacies, learn how to read for comprehension, and then come on back if you have any interest whatsoever in legitimate discussion?

Last edited by LashL; 29th May 2008 at 11:05 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2008, 12:11 AM   #348
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
(4d) In post #138, I argue that the testimony from Marlene Cruz suggests that the explosion she first heard came from below rather than above the freight elevator car 50. If this is true, coupled with the fact she did not receive burn injuries then this would further support the claim that car 50 was some distance above David at the time of the basment explosion.
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
Moving on, let us revisit the testimony of Marlene Cruz

No 3 Marlene Cruz was inside the freight elevator car 50

“I was gonna go do a job, and I got on the elevator – the freight elevator – and I heard the first explosion, and the elevator blew up, and the doors blew up, and it dropped. I was lucky that the elevator got caught between two floors, the “B” levels, the basement floors, you know, where all the mechanics are. And with the screaming and yelling the coworkers pulled the elevator guy out and myself…When I heard that explosion, the first thing I thought was, “Here we go again: another bomb.” [she had survived the 1993 bombing]

http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts%2Clobb

The (a) “explosion came from below” interpretation is more compatible than the (b) “explosion came from above” interpretation

-the car was blown “up” and the doors “blew up” supports (a) over (b)

-indeed it makes no sense how an explosion approx. 75+ floors above could cause the elevator and doors to blow upwards.
I see thewolesoul, your only proof that the first explosion Marlene Cruz heard came from below is a literal interpretation of the expression "blew up". There is distinct possibility that she used that expression in a figurative way, to describe the damage the elevator sustained when coming to a halt and being hit with debris from above. Like concrete:

Quote:
Cruz: "Well, like I said, I was going to, I got on the 50 car, which is the freight elevator. I was going to do a job on the 46th floor. And the elevator operator closed the door. It was just me and him in the elevator. All of a sudden I heard that explosion, and the doors blew, and the elevator dropped, and there was smoke, and fire, and water all over the place. Debris, concrete: you name it, just fell on top of us. He was out cold for a second."
Source: http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...ccounts%2Clobb

And are your really sure that she is listing the events in the right sequence of order here thewholsoul? Something I have pointed out to you before. Because Arturo Griffith has a somewhat different sequence of events:

Quote:
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.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...6/lklw.00.html
Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2008, 01:02 PM   #349
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
I see thewolesoul, your only proof that the first explosion Marlene Cruz heard came from below is a literal interpretation of the expression "blew up".
Wrong you only see what you want to see. Re-read post 238, I provided 8 reasons, not just one Norseman. Admittedly, the “literal interpretation” is perhaps the weakest of the 8 reasons provided, however because the explosion did come from below car 50 I included it and you would have done exactly the same thing in my position.

Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
There is distinct possibility that she used that expression in a figurative way, to describe the damage the elevator sustained when coming to a halt and being hit with debris from above. Like concrete:
Marlene Cruz claims on more than one occassion that the elevator doors blew up before the elevator stopped. Go re-read her testimony:

#1 “I heard the first explosion, and the elevator blew up, and the doors blew up, and it dropped”

#2 “All of a sudden I heard that explosion, and the doors blew, and the elevator dropped”

Norseman, no objective minded person could read those two extracts and conclude with what you have stated above. I maybe guilty of literal-interpretation but you my friend are guilty of mis-interpretation. It seems to me that she associates the explosion with the elevator blowing up. Now ask yourself what is a more probable explanation: (a) an explosion 75+ floors above caused the elevator to blow up or (b) an explosion 15-18 floors below caused the elevator to blow up? Besides the “sound” of the explosion above, even if heard, could not in itself cause an elevator to blow up.

Furthermore it was after the elevator and elevator door blew up that car 50 began to fall. This fact rules out the falling debris as an explanation because the car fell when the cables were cut and falling debris cannot travel at the speed of sound. Besides given the description of the damage to the door by both Cruz and Griffith falling concrete could not be used as an explanation. I covered this already Norseman in post 234 point no.7.

Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
And are your really sure that she is listing the events in the right sequence of order here thewholsoul? Something I have pointed out to you before. Because Arturo Griffith has a somewhat different sequence of events:
Griffith
Quote:
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... I didn't know what was happening...When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator
I can admit their testimony differs. But why should I give more weight to Griffiths account over Cruz? He “didn't know what was happening” and after he was rendered “unconscious” is it not conceivably that he simply forgot that the elevator door was blown up by the first explosion?

But hey your right, their testimony does conflict somewhat on this aspect. But on others it corroborates, for example, they both claim to have seen smoke before the fireball arrived. This fact alone cannot be explained by falling debris but can be easily explained by an explosion in the basement which of course supports my claim that the explosion heard by both Cruz and Griffith came from below.

Seriously Norseman, exactly whose testimony are you using to support that the explosion heard by the occupants inside car 50 came from above? Neither Cruz or Griffith ever claim they heard the explosion coming from above. In fact, the explosion immediately reminded Cruz of the 1993 bombing which came from below in the basement. There is however one article in the London Independent that states Griffith heard an “ominous noise from above”. But these words were not of Arturo Griffth himself but from the author a week after the event.

Regardless of the fact they were in an elevator shaft. Given that Mike McQauid did not hear the explosion when it was only two floors above his head, it seems unlikely that Cruz and Griffth heard the same explosion 75+ floors above their head. So I doubt that they actually heard the explosion of the plane impact. it is far more likely that they heard the explosion from below.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2008, 01:20 PM   #350
X
Slide Rulez 4 Life
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Are such ad hominem - attacks your standard of "debunking" here?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.


Which means that if LashL had said something along the lines of "your are a troll and therefore your argument is wrong", he would be guilty of an ad-hominem attack.

However, he did not do this. He stated that TheWholeSoul was cherry picking, an argument I expect LshL could back up.
Then he stated that TheWholeSoul was a dishonnest troll.

That is an insult, not an ad-hominem.

To summarize:
You are wrong and you are a troll -> not ad-hom.
You are wrong because you are a troll -> ad-hom.
__________________
It is sad that this is necessary:
Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly."
Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly."

[X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis
X is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2008, 01:34 PM   #351
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Did anyone yet point out how this is proof of bombs?
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2008, 02:05 PM   #352
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by [X] View Post
Which means that if LashL had said something along the lines of "your are a troll and therefore your argument is wrong", he would be guilty of an ad-hominem attack.

However, he did not do this. He stated that TheWholeSoul was cherry picking, an argument I expect LshL could back up.
Then he stated that TheWholeSoul was a dishonnest troll.

That is an insult, not an ad-hominem.

To summarize:
You are wrong and you are a troll -> not ad-hom.
You are wrong because you are a troll -> ad-hom.
after your display of intellectual masturbation are you going to refute my post 329?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2008, 02:55 PM   #353
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
But hey your right, their testimony does conflict somewhat on this aspect. But on others it corroborates, for example, they both claim to have seen smoke before the fireball arrived. This fact alone cannot be explained by falling debris but can be easily explained by an explosion in the basement which of course supports my claim that the explosion heard by both Cruz and Griffith came from below.
This can easily be explained by falling debris like concrete and gypsum plasterboard coming down from the impact zone. And do not forget decades of dust stirred up from inside the shaft by the falling elevator and the vibrations created by the impact of Flight 11.

This is how a person inside an elevator inside WTC 2 described it after Flight 175 caused their elevator car to fall, their shaft went all the way from the ground lobby up into the impact zone:
Quote:
Mann found himself trapped in a corner of the elevator, lying on top of someone. Debris and dust filled his mouth. Other passengers screamed and moaned. He heard other elevators crashing nearby.
Source: USA TODAY

From the 44th floor in WTC 2:
Quote:
My eyes focused on a
nearby out-of-service elevator. The impact had created a shock wave through the
entire building that forced dust at a high velocity from all four sides of the
elevator doors to the inside of the lobby.
Source: http://old.911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/9393

And are you really sure that people can differentiate between smoke and dust? From WTC 1 B4:
Quote:
Male: Are there any smoke conditions there?

Male: Yeah, we got smoke. I don’t know whether it’s (inaudible) soot or whether it’s dust, but we got smoke and water lines...(inaudible) ...Building One. PA Transcript, PA Ch. 15 – NYC EMS Direct Line
Source: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/
(The same call is also found in: WTC - Ch. 08 - Police Desk - 3541 Left)
Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2008, 07:05 PM   #354
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
the blind man and the elephant

Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
This can easily be explained by falling debris like concrete and gypsum plasterboard coming down from the impact zone. And do not forget decades of dust stirred up from inside the shaft by the falling elevator and the vibrations created by the impact of Flight 11.
desperate times truly call for desperate measures eh.

you support your argument citing one individual who cannot distinquish between smoke and dust.

does it count if i told you that i can distinguish between smoke and dust?

but the person you cited was in the B4 level not the B1 level where Griffith was

but if it helps there was another person down in B4 there who think it was smoke
Quote:
It’s, uh...both shops, they got people down there. You can’t go down there, because there’s smoke. PA Ch. 15 – NYC EMS Direct Line (p. 10)
i was going to cite the testimony of descriptions of smoke seen in the basement but i decided that would too laboursome.
+
So here are my objections:

1) gysum concrete and whatever else you want to drop down that elevator shaft will not - repeat will not - magically turn into smoke. give me a friggen break!!

2) car 50 was 5 floors above the shaft pit when it stopped so i seriously doubt that a car, no less than 50ft above the century old dust deposits will disturb it - to the extent that you imagine.

3) but let us just say i am dumb enough to swallow your explanation, the problem you still have is lack of cohesion between all the phenomena that occured before the fireball arrived (a) smoke (b) loud explosion (c) structural damage (d) felipe's burns and (e) people running and screaming in B1-2.

to explain your a lot like a blind man identifying an elephant: he says the trunk is a snake, the legs are tree trunks, the body is a barn and the tail is a piece of rope. although these suggestions may pass as explanations together they just dont add up. let me show you exactly what does:

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EssXKHQISm8

now i know you still find the video of an elephant unconvincing, so lets have it Norseman, what burnt Felipe before the fireball arrived? let me guess friction caused by the falling elevator that he didnt hear and managed not to burn the occupants!

the problem is Norseman you have no rational justification behind your explanation. but be my guest keep looking and i will keep showing you the light of truth!!! (apologese for sounding intentionally annoying)

o yes as for the vibrations: do you think they will get stronger in distance and time as they move further away from the source? because that is what i would have to accept, if i were to accept your explanation. and assuming that the vibrations travel away friom the source and downwards how my dear friend do you expect to explain McQuaids account on the 91st floor who "felt" an explosion coming from below?

Last edited by thewholesoul; 30th May 2008 at 07:21 PM.
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2008, 07:19 PM   #355
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Again, can someone please explain how this is evidence of bombs?
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2008, 07:23 PM   #356
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
This is just more of the same old from the truth movement. ANYTHING, no matter how insignificant, that anybody could possibly imagine is the gospel truth, as long as it is contrary to the 'official story'.

Blech
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 30th May 2008 at 07:23 PM.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2008, 06:26 AM   #357
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,183
Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless View Post
Again, can someone please explain how this is evidence of bombs?
what would count as evidence to you?
thewholesoul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2008, 07:16 AM   #358
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
This argument is just so inane; what could possibly be the motive to place bombs in the basement of a top-down collapse?
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2008, 07:25 AM   #359
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by TexasJack View Post
This argument is just so inane; what could possibly be the motive to place bombs in the basement of a top-down collapse?
Is this a bombs only theory or is it a bombs plus thermite theory? How big were these bombs? How were they detonated?
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2008, 08:43 AM   #360
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Originally Posted by thewholesoul View Post
what would count as evidence to you?
Are you not aware of what evidence is? How about something more than "people heard explosion sounds" which is absolutely NOT evidence since there are already 100s of events present that also cause explosion sounds. You need evidence would be something that can ONLY be caused by bombs, thus rulling out everything else.

Simply because there are factors involved in the events that you don't fully understand does not allow you to dismiss the most probable cause which is backed up by substantial evidence and replace it with a hypothesis that has absolutely no evidence what so ever.

OR, perhaps you or one of your twoofer scholars could provide us with a peer revieweed paper proving how bombs were used to demolish the WTC? Should be easy right?
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.