It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

William Rodriguez's testimony

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

After your last post, all I can say is, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it think.




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by discombobulator
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

Two points:

1) If they found traces of thermite in the dust, why didn't they find traces of "explosives" as well? According to you the thermite was mixed in with the "explosives" presumably to demolish all of the concrete, so why was one found and not the other?


I don't know.

You don't know? That's discouraging.

If the theory is that a more conventional type of explosive was used to pulverize all of the concrete, would it not be logical to suggest that large quantities of conventional explosives would be required to pulverize the large sections of concrete?

Yet there is no evidence of conventional explosives in the dust samples (the remains of the pulverised concrete), the same dust samples that have been used to "prove" the existence of thermite that was presumably used in a lesser quantity and allegedly shaped around steel support columns and not concrete.


I've done a certain amount of what might be called original thinking on the subject of 9/11, but for the most part I just try to keep up with investigations published by others. You are asking a technical question that is beyond my competence.

So you are saying that you don't have the technical understanding to verify the claims that have been made with regard to controlled demolition?


Remember that for the most part, the real investigation of 9/11 is being done by citizens on their own tab. Not by law enforcement agencies with large budgets.

The analysis of the dust performed by citizens on their own tab was sophisticated enough to "prove" the existence of thermite, but could not find trace elements of more traditional explosives?


This is Gage's opinion. He doesn't claim expertise in controlled demolition techniques.

Neither do you, but you've quite confidently told me that thermite and other "explosives" were used in a controlled demolition of the WTC, despite the fact that no traces of *any* explosives where found in the dust samples.


Just to cut to the chase on thermite. It is used to try to contain the debris field created by an explosive demolition.

So you are claiming expertise in controlled demolition techniques then?

Can you explain to me exactly how thermite is supposed to "contain the debris field created by an explosive". My understanding of thermite and it's application as it relates to the controlled demolition theory is that it was used to discretely sever the support columns through a process of thermal reaction which would make the traditional explosives redundant.

I've never, ever, seen it suggested anywhere that thermite has some wierd kind of force field property.


Being discrete has nothing to do with it.

Ridiculous.


The destruction of these towers never looked like an ordinary collapse to anyone.

This is quite untrue and verifiably so. The same program that included the Richard Gage quote also had a controlled demolition expert that said precisely the opposite of what you did. I've heard many others suggest the same.

My own personal opinion, and no, I'm not a controlled demolition expert (but neither are you), I failed to see how explosions in the basement would have contributed to a controlled demolition, especially when considering that the building collapsed from the top down, not the bottom up.

That, added to the fact that a chemical analysis of the pulverised dust (performed by Truthers) did not reveal the presensce of any type of "explosive" leads me to suspect that these "explosions" were the result of something other than a controlled demolition.


Mainstream broadcasters like Dan Rather

Is Dan Rather an expert on controlled demolition?

Dan Rather also put his journalistic integrity on the line over a set of falsified documents. Do you believe everything that Dan Rather says?


Gage and his group are experts on the structural aspects of the towers, not on the demolition techniques. I have heard him say so himself in an interview.

Are you saying that Richard Gage is not an expert on "super thermite", which according to you was used as a cutter charge to demolish the twin towers with it's by-products allegedy uncovered during a chemical analysis conducted by Truthers that didn't uncover the presensce of traditional explosives?


I don't know where all of the speculation about being discrete came from.

It came right from Richard Gage's mouth. He says that thermite was used because it didn't have any of the tell tale signatures of traditional controlled demolition explosives.

Presumably it was also because he wasn't able to find any traces of said traditional explosives when the chemical analysis was performed.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
"What do you think happened to all the detonators, and parts thereof, and the miles of detonator cord?"

The same thing that happened to the two black boxes from the alleged airliners which were also "never found". Quite a coincidence, heh?

But they did manage to find a hijacker's paper passport in pristine condition. Will wonders ever cease?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 

Another jailhouse lawyer.

I stand by what I have written. The readers will have to judge for themselves.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 

That old "miles of wire" chestnut is dragged out over and over again to fool the fools.

The "Teleblaster 2" should put an end to all that, not to mention detonator cord that, itself, ignites as mentioned in the linked video on shaped charges.

We're miles away from William Rodrigues now and I'm not going to indulge these guys, in this thread, by going into chapter and verse rebuttals of every quibble they bring up.



[edit on 14-12-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by discombobulator
 

Another jailhouse lawyer.

I stand by what I have written. The readers will have to judge for themselves.

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, not do I wish to be one. Have a look at someone like JPhish if you'd like a reason to dislike the legal fraternity.

I am, however, a critical thinker who cannot fully reconcile the theory you are expecting me to believe.

You ask me to believe that the scientific process supports the existence of A, but you also ask me to believe in the existence of B which should have also been confirmed by the scientific process used for A but is not.

I can think of multiple scenarios that could have resulted in the audible sound of an explosion. Ruptured gas pipes, for instance, may have filled an enclosed area with gas and become exposed to a spark or flame of some sort. Many vehicles in and around the WTC also caught fire and were destroyed. The sound of jumpers crashing through the outside structures whilst falling to their deaths.

To me these are far more viable explanations to the sound of explosions than one that should have been but wasn't support by the chemical analysis that was performed by Truthers themselves.

It seems to me that Steven Jones has disproven the use of traditional explosives at the WTC, and Richard Gage also appears to support this.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 

I'm not averse to discussing things that are related to what I believe to have been the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, but this is a thread about William Rodrigues's testimony before the 9/11 commission.

Believe me I have been in many threads where the minutiae of the CD hypothesis were discussed in detail. Let me play devil's advocate for a moment and assume that you are perfectly correct (which I don't know) that there are no explosive residues in the WTC dust. Let me go further and say that Jones and others are wrong in the chemical analysis of "traces of thermate/ite" and the signatures they found were innocuous.

There are still the iron spherules. There is still the near free fall speed. There is still the historically unprecedented collapse down to the ground of a steel framed building multiplied by three! There is still Larry Silverstein saying "Pull it." There is still the debunking of the pancake collapse theory by Gage & friends and it abandonment by NIST.

Along with many other questionable aspects of the 9/11 story, it's too much to swallow. Bafflegab and baloney, snakeoil and folksy charm are not going to make this go away. I still believe that the American people are made of better stuff than the people who let Hitler run amuck in the last century.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 

We're miles away from William Rodrigues now

No we're not, we're examining his claim of hearing explosions.

You're adamant that these explosions were caused by tradtional controlled demolition explosives, but Steven Jones disproved that when the chemical analysis was performed on the WTC dust.

So what caused the explosions then?


and I'm not going to indulge these guys, in this thread, by going into chapter and verse rebuttals of every quibble they bring up.

I'd just like you to respond to one, if that's ok with you. Why do you believe that traditional explosives were used when the scientific process conducted by Truthers could have but didn't identify any trace elements of them?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 

You are making a lot of assumptions about the details of my beliefs. Traditional explosives, non-traditional explosives, thermite, etc. These are all technical areas that can be argued over by experts.

If you look at Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness (the Hoboken edit of the video), you will see a lot of evidence that points toward controlled demolition and explosive demolition, upward trajectory of debris, lateral ejection of tons of material hundreds of feet, seismic evidence, etc. There is no discussion at all about the kinds of explosives that may or may not have been used. The lack of that discussion does not break the deal.

Many debunkers place too much emphasis on tiny areas where truthers may not have made a complete case. They ignore the preponderance of anomalies in the 9/11 story, the multiple war games, the insider trading, the failure of the insurers to investigate Silverstein for fraud, the anomaly in the M-1 money supply just prior to 9/11, the unprecedented collapse of three skyscrapers in one day, where other much worse damaged buildings have not collapsed. There are other things as well, a long list of them.

I don't know the details of how the controlled demolition was done. I can't explain inconsistencies in the findings of Steven Jones, if they are there. But I detect a strong odor of rat in the 9/11 story and I want a thorough investigation of it.

I don't want another 9/11 commission. I want the cops unleashed. I want Manhattan detectives on this case and I don't care if they kick the crap out of the suspects after they read them their rights.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by discombobulator
 

You are making a lot of assumptions about the details of my beliefs. Traditional explosives, non-traditional explosives, thermite, etc.

No, you have clearly stated your beliefs in this thread. You believe that thermite was used in combination with some type of "explosive" to bring down the Twin Towers. You believe that this has been proven by the evidence, and when pressed to state what physical evidence supports that assertion you brought up thermite.

I'm interested in what the causes of the allegedly audible explosions were. It seems to me that the chemical analysis performed by Steven Jones and supported by Richard Gage at the very least proved that they weren't caused by traditional (or non-traditional) "explosives".

Because if they'd found evidence of "explosives" in the dust samples, don't you think we'd have heard about it now?

Or maybe, just maybe (and this appears to be your only out) they botched the whole chemical analysis, and in reality, couldn't tell an ass from a turkey?


These are all technical areas that can be argued over by experts.

And then uncritically accepted by you?


If you look at Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness (the Hoboken edit of the video), you will see a lot of evidence that points toward controlled demolition and explosive demolition, upward trajectory of debris,
lateral ejection of tons of material hundreds of feet, seismic evidence, etc.

Did you investigate any of these claims or did you uncritically accept them as well?

From a layman's point of view I find it quite feasible that debris would have been ejected laterally during a crush down collapse of a structure. In fact, I've been saying it for years when challenged by Truthers to explain why the Twin Towers fell neatly into their own footprint. Now you guys have come full circle and expect debunkers to explain why the Twin Towers simultaneously did and did not fall into it's own footprint.

You can't have it both ways.

As for the seismic evidence, having reviewed the actual seismographic activity recorded at the WTC complex that morning I have found the complete opposite of what you are claiming. There is no discernable spike in seismic activity during the onset of collapse.


There is no discussion at all about the kinds of explosives that may or may not have been used.

There should be one when you take into account that Steven Jones and Richard Gage appear are claiming that no evidence of "explosives" was found in the dust samples.


Many debunkers place too much emphasis on tiny areas where truthers may not have made a complete case. They ignore the preponderance of anomalies in the 9/11 story, the multiple war games, the insider trading, the failure of the insurers to investigate Silverstein for fraud, the anomaly in the M-1 money supply just prior to 9/11, the unprecedented collapse of three skyscrapers in one day, where other much worse damaged buildings have not collapsed. There are other things as well, a long list of them.

Yet none of those things are relevant to the discussion at hand (what caused the explosions that Willie heard) and do not explain the total absence of "explosive" residue in the dust samples, even though we are supposed to believe that iron rich micro spheres were.

This is critically important as you have stated that thermite was a subcomponent of a larger "explosive" that Steven Jones did not discover in the dust samples.

No, what you call "too much emphasis on tiny areas" is actually the debunkers pressing Truthers to provide evidence for your claims.

You know that you can't back up your assertion that "explosives" were used so you throw out a handful of other unrelated Truther claims that don't explain why Steven Jones and Richard Gage couldn't find evidence of "explosives" in the dust samples. I bet you wouldn't spend very long defending them if pressed on any single one of them either.


I don't know the details of how the controlled demolition was done. I can't explain inconsistencies in the findings of Steven Jones, if they are there.

I've just pointed out a huge inconsistency in the findings of Steven Jones and what you state happened at the WTC complex, and you're still blind to it?

[edit on 14-12-2009 by discombobulator]



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I think that's it for me. I stand by what I have written. I think it's reasonable. People who can think for themselves will make up their minds on their own.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I think that's it for me. I stand by what I have written.

All you've written is the opinions of other people that you appear to have accepted without question.


I think it's reasonable. People who can think for themselves will make up their minds on their own.

You're absolutely right, but that's still no guarantee that they're going to come to the right conclusion.

Steven Jones came to the conclusion that there were no traces of traditional "explosives" in the dust samples collected from the WTC rubble. Did he come to the right conclusion?

Or does this now bring into doubt all of his other findings?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 





not to mention detonator cord that, itself, ignites as mentioned in the linked video on shaped charges.


Tell me you are kidding right? Are you seriously claiming that there were literally hundreds of burning fuses (yes a simplification I know, but fairly accurate) running into the three buildings from....somewhere....and NOBODY noticed?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


you seem knowledgeable in the area,

Why did the committee deem it necessary to question this man in a closed door session?

I just find it odd that the committee chose this route. Did the committee feel this man had info that could be damning to the nation's security or what?


I honestly don't know in Rodriguez' case, but I do know that it was very common to hold closed sessions with the survivors and relatives of victims of the 9/11 attack, to show them proper respect. I'll admit I'm not the most sensitive guy here, but even I know that putting a mother grieving over her murdered son in front of a bunch of cameras and reporters IS being rather tacky. I also know that Rodriguez was almost certainly not the only person being interviewed during that day's session, so if someone testifying before, or after, Rodriguez was someone who lost a loved one during the attack, you'll have your answer.

As for "this seems odd", we both know the only reason it sound odd is becuase those damned fool conspiracy web sites are deliberately misrepresenting this to make it appear odd. They're even perverting a gesture of compassion and respect into looking like it's a part of some secret plot to take over the world. Words can't describe my utter contempt for those con artists.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Baloney. I've already had lunch.

I apologize for being flippant, immediately above, but the scenario you describe is not believable. The fuel down the elevator shaft acting with explosive force more than eighty stories below the plane impact is a fantasy.


Then you have ANOTHER problem on your hands. Multiple eyewitnesses on multiple floors, from Rodriguez, David to even the people on the Naudet video, all testify that sheets of flame were coming out of the elevator shafts on the floors between the impact zone and the sub basement areas, which is in fact what burned David badly. This cannot be from thermite as it burns too slowly, and it cannot be explosives as they emit an explosive shock wave, not sheets of flame, and David would have been ripped to pieces rather than just burned. Thus, something in large quantities had to have been burning fiercely throughout the elevator shafts and/or central core.

The four things that cannot be denied is that-

a) jet fuel does burn fiercely. We all saw the fireball.

b) jet fuel was brought into the towers by the crashing jets. The exact amount of fuel was largely irtrelevent, becuase the fireball was 1/4 the size of the tower or so despite the small volume of fuel being carried in comparison to the volume of the fireball.

c) we all saw the fireball as it crashed so we know the fuel was set on fire upon impact.

d) the explosion in the sub basement occurred very close to, if not immediately during, the time all these other things were occuring.

If you're saying that the substance causing the sheets of flame wasn't the jet fuel being poured down the shafts, causing some still as-yet unknown chain reaction of events down in the basement, fine, I'd certainly like to hear what your alternative scenario is, but your alternative scenario still has to conform to the known facts. Claiming that the effects eyewitnesses saw were caused by secret explosives when we know that burning fuel WAS dumped into the buildings, AT THE EXACT SAME TIME as the plane impacts, AT THE EXACT SAME TIME as the sheets of flame everyone saw, seems rather spurious to me.

...unless I misunderstand your position?


Firefighters arriving on the scene said that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby of the building, with marble panels off the wall, broken plate glass windows, etc. Rodrigues said that they felt the floor rise when the bomb in the sub level of the building went off. It's far more reasonable to assume that explosion cause the lobby damage than fuel in the elevator shaft more than eighty stories below the impact zone.


Well then you have ANOTHER problem. The lobby was at least five floors above where these bombs were supposedly planted. For the lobby to "look like a bomb went off" it necessarily would have meant the bomb would've been so powerful it would also have have killed everyone in between, including Rodriguez. We know this becuase the 1993 bomb in the underground parking level left a 100 foot hole throughout five levels and killed six people, EXACTLY where Rodriguez was.

What evidence do you have that peopel were killed in the sub basement levels on 9/11?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

One of the oldest publications in the fire fighting trade called the investigation of the destruction of the towers a "farce".



If you're referring to the article I think you're referring to, then you're deliberately quoting it out of context in order to create false innuendo. That article was bemoaning that the wreckage needed to be examined becuase it would offer information on how to improve safety guidelines in other skyscrapers. They did not subscribe to these controlled demolitions claims whatsoever, but rather, they recognize that the collapse means something is really, really, wrong with current fire safety procedures.

Before I say anything more, which article are you referring to?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Tell me you are kidding right?


Swampy, I don't recall being particularly jocular in this thread, but since you seem to be hinting at a desire or perhaps a need to have your "funny bone" stimulated I am concluding this statement with a couple of amusing animations.



Are you seriously claiming that there were literally hundreds of burning fuses (yes a simplification I know, but fairly accurate) running into the three buildings from....somewhere....and NOBODY noticed?


Do you seriously require clarification on that?

Swampy, just because dumb is the current fashion trend among debunkers, doesn't mean you have to pretend to be dumb too.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Are you seriously claiming that there were literally hundreds of burning fuses (yes a simplification I know, but fairly accurate) running into the three buildings from....somewhere....and NOBODY noticed?


Do you seriously require clarification on that?

Actually, yes.

The "experts" on the side of 9/11 Truth have confirmed through scientific analysis that there were no traces of "explosives" in the WTC rubble.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   


Do you seriously require clarification on that?


Yeah, I do.

Because now we currently have this...

1.) No one noticed a large crew ripping offices apart to gain access to the exterior and interior columns of the Towers.

2.) No one noticed the same crew placing demolition charges all over the buildings.

3.) No one noticed the literally hundreds of det cords that were running from somewhere outside of the Towers.

4.) No one noticed when the hundreds of det cords were burning their way to their respective charges.


At this point it would be easier to fly a jet into the building.......



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
At this point it would be easier to fly a jet into the building.......


The most humane thing to do, for a criminal conspirator in the Bush administation, would be to fly the plane into the building, kill dozens of people near the impact zone and leave it at that.

The building would not have come down. Thousands of lives would have been saved. A much more believable fraud would have been committed, with the same result, enraging the American population (not to mention people around the world.) And the Oil and Ammo oligarchy and machiavellian geopolitical strategists would have had what they wanted, war.

The key point about this is that it would have been believable.

Instead, everybody had to get into the act and make a buck. They overplay their hand, create a completely unbelievable scenario, kill thousands and . . . launch the 9/11 truth movement.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join