William Rodriguez - Fraud?

[kyser_soze]

So you STILL haven't read the Protec report then?

 

[Jazzz]

Jazzz - your theory of controlled demolition is utter bullshit, not a single thing you've posted up in support of it stands up to any sort of rational investigation, and your notion that the explosives were planted in the bassement and went off before the plane hits is about as fucking ridiculous as they come.

The towers began collapsing from the floors the planes hit at, I know you've watched this process on film lots of times, so please please stop and think for at least half a second before you post up your next / latest recycled bullshit theory - even you can surely see that it's way more likely that a collapse starting at a point recently hit by jet planes laden with fuel is likely to be caused by a combination of the impact of the planes and resulting fires rather than an explosion fuck knows how many floors below and more than an hour earlier.

You are suggesting that because controlled demolitions usually collapse buildings from the bottom, that they cannot do so another way. This is false logic. If one wanted to collapse the building and make it look like muslims hijackers had done it, you'd organize things differently. To do this would likely take very many explosions and possibly a pretty big one to take out the core foundations. Maybe they got that one out of the way with early on, using the plane impacts as a distraction.

 

[Jazzz]

So you STILL haven't read the Protec report then?

yeah I have. It was pretty dull. Dressed up like something authoritative yet very light on substance - practically just a couple of posts' worth. I'll comment on it when I have a moment but I've had so much personal abuse slammed at me lately I'm no mood for being accommodating.

 

[editor]

2) Yes the bomb must have been big.

So how come not a fucking single soul of the tens of thousands of people working in and around the WTC reported hearing a thing?

Sorry. I forgot. No one apart from Rodriguez (belatedly) and his weirdly silent and nameless 22 chums. How curious.

 

[WouldBe]

As I mentioned on the other thread, the flight 93 crash was a lesser seismic event than that associated with the WTC impacts: and they weren't able to find one at all for the Pentagon crash! (Missile, perchance?) This is all perfectly in keeping with our bomb theory and begs explanation otherwise.

How convenient that a bomb in the WTC should register seismically but a missile hitting the pentagon doesn't.

 

[editor]

You are suggesting that because controlled demolitions usually collapse buildings from the bottom, that they cannot do so another way. This is false logic.

Got any examples of large skyscrapers being demolished in this manner, please?
And could you FINALLY explain how the explosives were brought in, what floors they were installed in and explain how not a soul saw or heard a thing during the lengthy, complex and noisy process of installing thousands of explosives charges? Thanks.

 

[editor]

yeah I have. It was pretty dull.

"Pretty dull" as in packed full of authoritative facts and credible research written by highly qualified authors, yes?

I guess you prefer the exciting works of sci-fi fiction posted up on sites promoting Holocaust denial yes?

 

[icklefairy]

Do you think Jazzz really believes what he says or has he just backed himself into a corner and cant/won't open his mind to the possibility that he is probably wrong after all?

 

[axon]

1) The seismologist chaps quote plus or minus one second for their time.

Yes, but without either of us knowing how they do the calculation this number doesn't mean anything. Is it the error associated with using multiple starting parameters and assumptions or is it the error in the actual measurements.

2) Yes the bomb must have been big. That the 1993 bomb (which wasn't coupled to the ground IIRC) didn't register certainly would make it likely that the air impact wouldn't either.

This makes no sense. Because the '93 bomb didn't register this means the impact wouldn't register

As I mentioned on the other thread, the flight 93 crash was a lesser seismic event than that associated with the WTC impacts

Well I'm no expert, but I think a plane hitting the ground might have a little less energy that a fuck off skyscraper wobbly about.

and they weren't able to find one at all for the Pentagon crash! (Missile, perchance?)

Beam weapon perchance? Let's save the pentagon for another thread. We don't want to be running of creating new questions while we haven't answered these ones. I think the Pentagon is a different case to the WTC as it is a different shape.

This is all perfectly in keeping with our bomb theory and begs explanation otherwise.

Except that the massive bomb was only heard by Rodriguez (in the second version of his story) and a handful out of the thousands of people around. Did Rodriguez also hear the plane impact? Did anyone hear the bomb in the other WTC tower?

Your bomb theory seems to rest on the assumption that very very large bombs went off in both towers prior to impacts. These bombs were noticed by virtually no one (consider how many people were around), AND that aircraft impacting the towers and the subsequent wobble would generate no seismic data. Is this fair?

 

[WouldBe]

To do this would likely take very many explosions and possibly a pretty big one to take out the core foundations. Maybe they got that one out of the way with early on, using the plane impacts as a distraction.

On the other thread you argued that the core was capable of supporting 100% of the weight of the WTC and through the hat truss was able to take some of the weight of the outer wall. If the core has to support part of the outer wall then the outer wall isn't capable of standing on it's own.

If you take out the core of the building with a bomb prior to collapse what holds the building up?

 

[8den]

You are suggesting that because controlled demolitions usually collapse buildings from the bottom, that they cannot do so another way. This is false logic.

Irony your name is Jazzz.

If one wanted to collapse the building and make it look like muslims hijackers had done it, you'd organize things differently. To do this would likely take very many explosions and possibly a pretty big one to take out the core foundations. Maybe they got that one out of the way with early on, using the plane impacts as a distraction.

So if I have the logic clear it's this. 911 is an inside job. Why? Because the way the towers come down looks like a standard CD. But hang on, they used a (unspecificed)non standard control demolition technique to bring the towers down.

So the question has to be asked, if you don't know how they brought the towers down, how can it look like a standard CD? The only way for it to look like a traditional controlled demolition is for them to use traditional control demolition techniques.

This is your cake Jazzz. Would you like to eat the cake? Or have the cake?

 

[kyser_soze]

yeah I have. It was pretty dull. Dressed up like something authoritative yet very light on substance - practically just a couple of posts' worth. I'll comment on it when I have a moment but I've had so much personal abuse slammed at me lately I'm no mood for being accommodating.

What, you mean dull because it was written by actual experts in the field, backed up with their own and other's research but having the one, tiny little problem that it takes apart basically your entire CD argument, as well as casting negative light on things like the 'molten metal' and providing a clear set of hows on WTC7? Is that why it's 'dull'?

Jazz, you can't even convincingly show HOW that many explosives could have been installed into the 3 buildings, let alone demonstrate how they'd blow.

But then, no doubt Protec - people who make their living from advising others on how to blow buildings up and making sure it happens safely - are coopted pawns of Bush, eh?

So lets say it again:

Protec - people who advise on blowing buildings up for a living. Backed up by experience and science.

Stephen Jones - a THEOLOGY professor
Mr Rodriguez - someone who has substantially altered his 'eyewitness' account of what happened from the first day to his interviews with 'truth' movement.
Alex Jones - dude who still thinks Kennedy needed to be shot with a magic bullet, despite being shown the seating layout of the car that completely shows that no 'magic bullet' was required.

 

[Jazzz]

So how come not a fucking single soul of the tens of thousands of people working in and around the WTC reported hearing a thing?

Sorry. I forgot. No one apart from Rodriguez (belatedly) and his weirdly silent and nameless 22 chums. How curious.

They are not nameless. One is Felipe David, the chap whose skin was mauled by the blast. I'm sure the names were also available to the 9/11 Commission who refused to call them. The chaos of having a plane then hit the tower a few moments later would serve well to distract from the previous explosion.

Think about how much of Rodriguez' testimony you've heard in the mainstream press. Hardly any, right? Well it's going to the be the same for the other guys. Unless they vigorously promote their story, which may not be their bag you might not hear it.

 

[kyser_soze]

Because the way the towers come down looks like a standard CD

Which of course it doesn't. A quick look at the videos on implosionweb followed by watching the 9/11 footage shows the really obvious differences...

 

[MikeMcc]

You are suggesting that because controlled demolitions usually collapse buildings from the bottom, that they cannot do so another way. This is false logic. If one wanted to collapse the building and make it look like muslims hijackers had done it, you'd organize things differently. To do this would likely take very many explosions and possibly a pretty big one to take out the core foundations. Maybe they got that one out of the way with early on, using the plane impacts as a distraction.

If they took out the core foundations pretty quick, how come so many people were able to escape, and so many firefighters enter up and down the stairwells within the core structure? How would the 14 survivors of the collapse in stairwell B in the North Tower survive?

Are you really suggesting that to do this they would exceed the world record in height for a demolition (by a factor of 3), do it using a technique that no you has used before (top, downwards), from a floor that they couldn't predict and that would be involved in a major air crash and fire. That they would do so with invisible explosives and thermate, det cord, timing mechanisms, involving substantial disturbance to the structure of the building. On top of that they would have to do this three times, perfectly...

 

[Jazzz]

So if I have the logic clear it's this. 911 is an inside job. Why? Because the way the towers come down looks like a standard CD. But hang on, they used a (unspecificed)non standard control demolition technique to bring the towers down.

So the question has to be asked, if you don't know how they brought the towers down, how can it look like a standard CD? The only way for it to look like a traditional controlled demolition is for them to use traditional control demolition techniques.

You haven't got the logic clear at all. It looked like a CD - near free-fall time, pulverisation to dust - squibs - rows of flashes, crackles, horizontal ejection of beams, that kind of thing - the point at which it collapsed is neither here nor there.

 

[Jazzz]

Do you think Jazzz really believes what he says or has he just backed himself into a corner and cant/won't open his mind to the possibility that he is probably wrong after all?

I thought you were defending WR?

 

[icklefairy]

I don't believe the theory about the bombs, I just believe Rodriguez does so I don't think he's a fraud as such.

I just don't understand why you spend all your time trying to make people believe it when there is lots and lots of evidence to the contrary.

Seems like you're banging your head on a brick wall for nothing.

 

[editor]

They are not nameless. One is Felipe David, the chap whose skin was mauled by the blast.

But there were tens of thousands of people in and around the WTC and none - repeat NONE - spoke of hearing a massive explosion before the plane hit, and Rodriguez only changed his story later.

There would be no reason on earth why any of the thousands of workers in the building who supposedly heard this blast would feel compelled to keep quiet on the day. Why should they?

Yet you still desperately cling to your ludicrous fact-free fantasy of invisibly installed invisible explosives and now silent invisible massive bombs.

 

[editor]

I thought you were defending WR?

Why should he be "defended."

The only things that matter are the facts, and it's clear that there aren't any to back up William Rodriguez's wild claims.

 

[WouldBe]

rows of flashes, crackles,

Funny but live electrical cables have a habit of doing that when you cut through them.

 

[pk]

Do you think Jazzz really believes what he says or has he just backed himself into a corner and cant/won't open his mind to the possibility that he is probably wrong after all?

Abit of both. Such is the nature of self-delusion.

I'd love to hear a single comment from Filipe David on this issue.

 

[Jazzz]

Yes, but without either of us knowing how they do the calculation this number doesn't mean anything. Is it the error associated with using multiple starting parameters and assumptions or is it the error in the actual measurements.

If the seismologists quote plus or minus one second that means the seismic event happened within that time. One can be very confident. Fourteen seconds' discrepancy is simply not possible.

This makes no sense. Because the '93 bomb didn't register this means the impact wouldn't register

Well I'm no expert, but I think a plane hitting the ground might have a little less energy that a fuck off skyscraper wobbly about.

Nope. The plane hitting the ground directly is always going to transfer more energy to it than when there is a skyscraper in the middle of the chain.

Beam weapon perchance? Let's save the pentagon for another thread. We don't want to be running of creating new questions while we haven't answered these ones. I think the Pentagon is a different case to the WTC as it is a different shape.

At the very least, if you believe the official theory it shows that a plane impact might not register at all which nixes the objection that they must have for the WTC. And I can't help noticing that it if perfectly in keeping with theories that a plane didn't hit it.

Except that the massive bomb was only heard by Rodriguez (in the second version of his story) and a handful out of the thousands of people around. Did Rodriguez also hear the plane impact? Did anyone hear the bomb in the other WTC tower?

Your bomb theory seems to rest on the assumption that very very large bombs went off in both towers prior to impacts. These bombs were noticed by virtually no one (consider how many people were around), AND that aircraft impacting the towers and the subsequent wobble would generate no seismic data. Is this fair?

Don't forget it was still early morning. To well differentiate this explosion from the plane impact, and not confuse the two in the chaos, you may well have to have been in the basements. 22 witnesses for this seems plenty to me.

 

[Jazzz]

I don't believe the theory about the bombs, I just believe Rodriguez does so I don't think he's a fraud as such.

I just don't understand why you spend all your time trying to make people believe it when there is lots and lots of evidence to the contrary.

There isn't. But don't you then think WR is banging his head on a brick wall for nothing?

 

[editor]

22 witnesses for this seems plenty to me.

Have you read their testimony then Jazzz?
Do you know if they're credible witnesses?
Where were they at the time?
Can their claims be checked?
Did they change their minds afterwards like your hero did?
Why didn't they say something at the time?
And can you possibly come up with an even remotely sane explanation why tens of thousands of workers, visitors and passers by all failed to notice this massive, colossal explosion booming forth from the WTC? Any idea?

 

[icklefairy]

There isn't. But don't you then think WR is banging his head on a brick wall for nothing?

Definitely, I'm not slating him or you for your beliefs, I just choose not to believe it based on the evidence I have seen.

 

[axon]

You haven't got the logic clear at all. It looked like a CD - near free-fall time, pulverisation to dust - squibs - rows of flashes, crackles, horizontal ejection of beams, that kind of thing - the point at which it collapsed is neither here nor there.

Don't forget the other thread about these things i.e. it wasn't near free fall time, there was large debris not just dust, squibs were not present, horizontal ejection fits with any sort of collapse. Just because this is a different thread doesn't invalidate were you've been shown to be wrong in toher threads.

 

[editor]

I just choose not to believe it based on the evidence I have seen.

Wooargh! Steady on! That's not how Jazzz likes to operate!

 

[Jazzz]

Don't forget the other thread about these things i.e. it wasn't near free fall time, there was large debris not just dust, squibs were not present, horizontal ejection fits with any sort of collapse. Just because this is a different thread doesn't invalidate were you've been shown to be wrong in toher threads.

I beg to differ - NIST themselves say the collapse was 'near free-fall' time. In fact it's only on urban75 that anyone claims otherwise. There was a massive dust cloud and it was incredibly fine. There were what looked like squibs. This doesn't fit with 'any sort of collapse'. The media commentators remarked that it 'looked like a controlled demolition' at the time - that was indeed what it looked like.

 

[axon]

If the seismologists quote plus or minus one second that means the seismic event happened within that time. One can be very confident. Fourteen seconds' discrepancy is simply not possible.

I do believe the seismologists estimate. All I am saying, and this is indisputable, is that without knowing how the calculation is done you or I cannot comment on the degree of error.

Nope. The plane hitting the ground directly is always going to transfer more energy to it than when there is a skyscraper in the middle of the chain.

But it's not just the sum total energy transfre that dictates how seismic waves propogate is it.

At the very least, if you believe the official theory it shows that a plane impact might not register at all which nixes the objection that they must have for the WTC.

I'm not saying that a plane impact has to register, I'm saying that if it didn't register then the bomb must have been huge, the impact of the bomb must have been at least 10 times bigger than that of the airplane hitting and shaking the WTC tower.

To well differentiate this explosion from the plane impact, and not confuse the two in the chaos, you may well have to have been in the basements. 22 witnesses for this seems plenty to me.

Or possibly to not confuse a bomb explosion with a plane impact and subsequent damage you might well have to have not been in the basement.