Rosie & Willie Rodriguez (Video) [Archive]

A W Smith

13th September 2008, 07:37 PM

And how much money has he made?

but he does have an "organization" in place
why not try to book him for an appearance and find out?

heres a clue below of his motives

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/troofer-wars-dylan-avery-vs-william.html
I did know about Charlie Sheen because they told me as they did many other people in the conference, in fact by the end of the conference, everyone was talking about it. Specially very impressed girls that were there. Cuban? I did not know who he was or that he was involved at all. The first time I heard his name was on the post article, never even followed sports before-except for boxing . Now I gather you are either Jason or Korey - because you have been quiet since april-so I will address this directly. You were bragging about the money and budget to "certain" people. I was very happy for all of you and even facilitated many interviews. In my case, I told them ( you ) that if this was going to be a movie release and not an internet effort, the rules of the game changes and that I, my organization should be compensated, in exchange I will give you the rights to the testimony and also unique exclusive videos of my 20 years working on the Towers. Finally, access to many of the eyewitnesses that are waiting to testify that were never interviewed before. Not a bad deal, isn't? I helped broker your interview with April Gallup asking you to set up some kind of Scholarship or help fund for her as well. You agreed. I had the calls from Erick still saved talking about the need for the interview and agreement on basic terms. we also agreed that a porcentage of the proceeds should go to help first responders. Very loable.

Max Photon

13th September 2008, 07:49 PM

LashL

13th September 2008, 07:58 PM

Could someone kindly explain why there is such a savage hatred of William Rodriguez?[/spoiler]

I do not see savagery or hatred toward Rodriguez here. Dismay, disdain, and/or disgust, perhaps, but neither savagery nor hatred.

A W Smith

13th September 2008, 08:00 PM

It was said that the savage hatred focused here on William Rodriguez is because he lies about 9/11 to make money.

How much money has he made between 09/11/01 and 09/11/08? Let's just try for order of magnitude, shall we?

1 cent
10 cents
$1
$10
$100
$1,000
$10,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
$10,000,000
$100,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000

Anyone?

I think my bolding of his own words in the post above your half pyramid of money makes willies motives quite clear. there is no need to pin a dollar amount on what he possibly earned. As a truther perhaps you can pin a dollar amount on what he has donated to 9/11 victims. if any. See how that type of argument works?

RedIbis

13th September 2008, 08:01 PM

Sorry it's not self-evident; could you kindly list Mr. Rodriguez's lies?

List? They won't even name one.

Max Photon

13th September 2008, 08:14 PM

A W Smith,

Why don't you share with us what you interpret Willie's quote to mean. What is self-evident in your mind might not be so for others.

If you have charges, be specific.

A W Smith

13th September 2008, 08:21 PM

A W Smith,

Why don't you share with us what you interpret Willie's quote to mean.

he wants compensation for his 'truth"

Max Photon

13th September 2008, 09:31 PM

Back to our regular programming.....

So Willie Rodriguez stirs up negativity in many of you because he lies about 9/11 - as meticulously outlined by Gravy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...0&postcount=76) - and receives compensation for it?

Is that a fair summary?

stateofgrace

13th September 2008, 09:34 PM

Stop dodging what you posted.

Back it up or retract it.

CHF

13th September 2008, 10:56 PM

Max, does it bother you at all that Mr. "I am 9/11" makes claims that are obviously false?

Does it bother you that he made none of his current BS claims when he testified in 2004 before NIST?

Max Photon

13th September 2008, 11:12 PM

Audio Bonus: Attention Whore Willie “I Am 9/11” Rodriguez exploits the death of Kenny Johannemann (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/09/03/2008-09-03_911_claims_one_more_victim.html) (another WTC janitor who committed suicide recently)...

Walter Ego,

I've heard some of Rodriquez's interview with Kenny Johannemann. What I heard was both riveting and heartbreaking....very powerful indeed. Please explain exactly how Wille is exploiting Kenny's tragic death.

WildCat

13th September 2008, 11:55 PM

Wow...

How about the "truth" movement back up one of its claims for a change?

chillzero

14th September 2008, 07:31 AM

Stop the bickering. I have move a derail and also the bickering to AAH. Discussion of an interview has been dealt with elsewhere and is off topic here. Bickering at each other is uncivil.

Everyone, please remember the MA, go refresh your memory if you need to.

Every post from this point on must be civil, and on topic to this thread.

RedIbis

14th September 2008, 08:05 AM

eeyore1954

14th September 2008, 08:06 AM

I see he still clings to his monicker of "last man out". I guess he is a showman not a truthseeker.

All they want is someone to tell his story according to Rosie. 60 minutes , 20/20 etc. What does he have to tell that is worthy for one of those shows. Why doesn't Rosie spend some of her money , produce a little show and buy some time from the infomercial channels and get the word out to the masses. It can't cost that much compared to what she probably has and what an important issue this should be to her.

For myself I would prefer to watch an infomercial for Popeil's Pocket Fisherman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fh_YwAnv7w

Walter Ego

14th September 2008, 11:05 AM

All they want is someone to tell his story according to Rosie. 60 minutes , 20/20 etc. What does he have to tell that is worthy for one of those shows. Why doesn't Rosie spend some of her money , produce a little show and buy some time from the infomercial channels and get the word out to the masses. It can't cost that much compared to what she probably has and what an important issue this should be to her.

Yes, why don't some of these celebs like Rosie, Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, et al, none of them paupers, pony up some of their own bread to produce, say, an hour long truth documentary and then buy time on cable channels or local stations in the major tv markets to get out the word about 9/11 instead of producing weird videos in their kitchens bellyaching about how the “truth” is being ignored?

I think even the truthers know the answer to that one.

Max Photon

14th September 2008, 11:09 AM

RedIbis

14th September 2008, 07:49 PM

Sorry the link didn't work. Here it is again:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2675200&postcount=76

Gravy: You have no evidence that the basement explosions were due to anything but jet fuel. Will you stop claiming that you do?

As if Gravy has evidence that the basement explosions were caused by jet fuel.

MarkyX

14th September 2008, 07:53 PM

As if Gravy has evidence that the basement explosions were caused by jet fuel.

Bombs weren't found in the WTC debris.

RedIbis

14th September 2008, 07:59 PM

Bombs weren't found in the WTC debris.

And sometimes I prefer Monterray Jack on a smoked chicken breast sandwich.

Drudgewire

14th September 2008, 08:13 PM

And sometimes I prefer Monterray Jack on a smoked chicken breast sandwich.

I wouldn't recommend putting yours down on Rosie's counter with those two around. You might lose a hand trying to pick it back up. :p

WildCat

14th September 2008, 08:23 PM

Any truther want to explain how someone can get close enough to a bomb to get severely burned, and not get blown to smithereens? Any idea what kind of bomb can do that?

T.A.M.

14th September 2008, 08:44 PM

Truther Fantasmabombs?

TAM:)

RedIbis

14th September 2008, 08:49 PM

Truther Fantasmabombs?

TAM:)

I bet there are plenty of doctors in the Baghdad burn unit that can tell you.

MarkyX

14th September 2008, 08:57 PM

I bet there are plenty of doctors in the Baghdad burn unit that can tell you.

Bombs weren't found in the WTC debris.

RedIbis

14th September 2008, 08:59 PM

Bombs weren't found in the WTC debris.

Neither was jet fuel.

Drudgewire

14th September 2008, 09:08 PM

Neither was jet fuel.

I actually thought to myself "man, Ibis might come back with 'they didn't find jet fuel either' but then dismissed it thinking 'no way, he's not THAT gullible, is he?'"

You just keep raising the bar, my friend. :newlol

WildCat

14th September 2008, 09:22 PM

I bet there are plenty of doctors in the Baghdad burn unit that can tell you.
There are? You know of people in Iraq getting burned by bombs RedIbis?

Or do they get burned when the fuel in their vehicles is ignited by shrapnel?

RedIbis will not answer this question.

Pardalis

14th September 2008, 09:29 PM

And sometimes I prefer Monterray Jack on a smoked chicken breast sandwich.

I bet there are plenty of doctors in the Baghdad burn unit that can tell you.

Now you're clearly trolling.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 09:43 PM

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 09:49 PM

He also asserts that he gave a list of witnesses to the 9/11 Commission who heard and felt the same explosion. Is this claim true or false? If it's false, what's the evidence that it's false?

fullflavormenthol

14th September 2008, 09:50 PM

Rodriguez claims to have heard an explosion from under him - which also lifted him and others up - before the plane struck the tower. Is this claim true or false? If it's false, what's the evidence for its falsity?
Can't prove a negative. The onus is to prove it true.

So what evidence do you have that there was an explosion in the basement, before the planes hit; beyond the testimony of Rodriguez?

Pardalis

14th September 2008, 09:51 PM

Rodriguez claims to have heard an explosion from under him - which also lifted him and others up - before the plane struck the tower. Is this claim true or false? If it's false, what's the evidence for its falsity?

We can't know 100% if it's true either. Memory is easily malleable and unreliable.

Plus, he couldn't have known for sure which of the sounds he heard was the explosion of the impact or the elevators falling down, or any other possible things that could have fallen or exploded inside or outside the building.

But of course you won't accept that explanation and we're up for another 10 pages of insanity.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 09:54 PM

Can't prove a negative. The onus is to prove it true.

So what evidence do you have that there was an explosion in the basement, before the planes hit; beyond the testimony of Rodriguez?

In the video, he claims to have provided a list of witnesses who heard the same explosion to the 9/11 Commission.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 09:56 PM

But of course you won't accept that explanation and we're up for another 10 pages of insanity.

You don't know me, so don't assume what I will or won't accept. You'll only look foolish.

fullflavormenthol

14th September 2008, 09:57 PM

In the video, he claims to have provided a list of witnesses who heard the same explosion to the 9/11 Commission.
And how were these witnesses qualified to distinguish between the sounds of a bomb going off or say elevators slamming to the ground? Also eye witness testimony isn't accurate, and a list is worthless without the actual testimony of the people in question.

The fact stands that you haven't met the burden of proof of a bomb going off in the basement. I defer to Pardalis given that he seems better at this than me.

Pardalis

14th September 2008, 10:06 PM

You don't know me, so don't assume what I will or won't accept. You'll only look foolish.

See you in ten pages.

WildCat

14th September 2008, 10:06 PM

Rodriguez claims to have heard an explosion from under him - which also lifted him and others up - before the plane struck the tower.
And how does Willie come to the conclusion that his explosion happened before the plane struck the tower 90 floors above him?

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 10:10 PM

And how were these witnesses qualified to distinguish between the sounds of a bomb going off or say elevators slamming to the ground? Also eye witness testimony isn't accurate, and a list is worthless without the actual testimony of the people in question.

The fact stands that you haven't met the burden of proof of a bomb going off in the basement. I defer to Pardalis given that he seems better at this than me.

1. Stop it with the misrepresentation. I haven't claimed that a bomb went off in the basement, so I have no such burden to meet.

2. Stop it with the misrepresentation. In the video, Rodriguez does not say he heard "a bomb going off," but an "explosion from below" which lifted him and others up. Moreover, this alleged explosion occurred before the plane crash.

3. Stop it with the misleading statements. The reason why others who allegedly experienced what he did didn't testify is because they were never called to testify.

4. Stop making me repeat myself: Are his claims true or false? Do you have evidence that they are false?

DavidJames

14th September 2008, 10:11 PM

Now you're clearly trolling.Now?

fullflavormenthol

14th September 2008, 10:16 PM

1. Stop it with the misrepresentation. I haven't claimed that a bomb went off in the basement, so I have no such burden to meet.

Oh, I'm sorry. You have the burden to prove an explosion took place in the basement.

2. Stop it with the misrepresentation. In the video, Rodriguez does not say he heard "a bomb going off," but an "explosion from below" which lifted him and others up. Moreover, this alleged explosion occurred before the plane crash.

Well then how would he have known that it took place before the crash? Again there is a burden of proof here. Did he make it a point to look at his watch or something before and after the "explosion (not a bomb)"?

3. Stop it with the misleading statements. The reason why others who allegedly experienced what he did didn't testify, is because they were never called to testify.

Again, eye witness testimony isn't really reliable. Secondly I cannot take testimony into consideration that was never made. Sorry.

4. Stop making me repeat myself: Are his claims true or false? Do you have evidence that they are false?

You choose to repeat yourself. The answer was very clear...YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. SO...THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE A POSITIVE IN THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE MAKING.

"Stop it" with the intellectual evasion and semantics. Also "stop it" with the "stop it".

DavidJames

14th September 2008, 10:19 PM

You don't know me, so don't assume what I will or won't accept.
You have 409 posts in less then two weeks. All of them pushing 9/11 CT theories. You have exhibited zero ability to intelligently analyze evidence. You have posted astonishingly ignorant interpretations of of data. You have shown no ability to learn.

You are just like the dozens of other CTists who exhibit identical intellectually deficient analytic capabilities. You are an unremarkable, garden variety, 9/11 CTists. Don't know you? Ha, everyone knows you.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 10:29 PM

Oh, I'm sorry. You have the burden to prove an explosion took place in the basement.

Again, stop it with the misrepresentation. I never claimed that an explosion took place in the basement, so I have no such burden to meet.

Well then how would he have known that it took place before the crash?

One possibility: Using his senses, he heard and felt the explosion from below, and then heard the plane crash from above.

Again there is a burden of proof here. Did he make it a point to look at his watch or something before and after the "explosion (not a bomb)"?

Do you have surround sound? Ever take a stroll in the park? Are you seriously suggesting that it takes some specially trained ability to discriminate when one event occurs before another?

Again, eye witness testimony isn't really reliable.

Depends on the type of testimony, how many witnesses there were, etc. The fact that the claim is based on "eye witness testimony" isn't necessarily a problem.

Secondly I cannot take testimony into consideration that was never made. Sorry.

So admit that you don't know the answer. I will: I DON'T KNOW IF HIS CLAIMS ARE TRUE OR FALSE, SO I WILL NOT DISSMISS THEM OUT OF HAND. Do you agree? Yes or no?

You choose to repeat yourself. The answer was very clear...

Yes, the answer is clear: I don't know. Will you admit that you don't know either?

YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. SO...THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE A POSITIVE IN THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE MAKING.

Except that I'm not putting forth an assertion to be proved.

"Stop it" with the intellectual evasion and semantics. Also "stop it" with the "stop it".

Actually, unless you have evidence one way or the other, "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer. Also, you really were misrepresenting my views, so I felt justified with the "stop it" act.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 10:31 PM

You have 409 posts in less then two weeks. All of them pushing 9/11 CT theories.

Your second statement is false, and thus it's easy to dismiss the rest of what you say. Show me one 9/11 "theory" I was pushing. SHOW IT. Don't just assert.

Pardalis

14th September 2008, 10:34 PM

2. Stop it with the misrepresentation. In the video, Rodriguez does not say he heard "a bomb going off," but an "explosion from below" which lifted him and others up. Moreover, this alleged explosion occurred before the plane crash.

One possibility: Using his senses, he heard and felt the explosion from below, and then heard the plane crash from above.

Again, the explosion that lifted them off the ground was probably the plane impact. A Boeing 767 plowing through the building at high speed is probably what did that. A lot of people reported being shook hard when the planes hit.

The explosion he heard after was probably the elevators falling to the ground or the jet fuel coming down. That explosion didn't make them levitate, or at least he didn't mention it. Also, it's right after that explosion that he witnessed people coming out of the elevators burnt, so that would be in direct causation.

For some reason he's trying to retrofit his recollections into his conspiracy narrative.

Again, I don't expect you to take this into consideration, so I'll leave you to your incessant ramblings.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 10:36 PM

You have 409 posts in less then two weeks. All of them pushing 9/11 CT theories. You have exhibited zero ability to intelligently analyze evidence.

Since I have over 400 + posts, it shouldn't be hard to identify the particular "9/11 CT theory" I'm accused of "pushing" these past two weeks--that is, unless you have a serious definciency to intellgently analyze simple written data.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 10:38 PM

Again, the explosion that lifted them off the ground was probably the plane impact.

Again, on what basis do you dismiss his claim (and the alleged testimony of others who say the same) that an explosion below him occurred before the plane crash?

Pardalis

14th September 2008, 10:42 PM

Again, on what basis do you dismiss his claim (and the alleged testimony of others who say the same) that an explosion below him occurred before the plane crash?

I just told you less than a minute ago. Memory is highly unreliable and malleable. Witnesses always, and often unintentionally, try to fit their memories with what they think they know what happened.

Also, besides Rodriguez, you don't have other testimonies of a terrific explosion before the plane crash, or what is alleged to be before the plane crash.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 10:50 PM

I just told you less than a minute ago. Memory is highly unreliable and malleable. Witnesses always, and often unintentionally, try to fit their memories with what they think they know what happened.

Also, besides Rodriguez, you don't have other testimonies of a terrific explosion before the plane crash, or what is alleged to be before the plane crash.

1. Yes you do. According to Rodriguez, there are other witnesses who experienced the same event, but were never called to testify.

2. The whole "memory is highly unreliable and malleable" thing is nothing but a cop out--for you can use that excuse to dismiss out of hand any eye-witness claim.

WildCat

14th September 2008, 10:51 PM

Since Willie's basement explosion also blew out the WTC lobby there should be plenty of witnesses on the street (who could also hear and see the plane hit) who noticed this happened before the plane hit.

And yet, it's only Willie who claims this. The guy who couldn't see and hear when the plane hit.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 10:54 PM

And yet, it's only Willie who claims this.

Stop it with the misrepresentation: There are, according to Rodriguez, other witnesses who experienced the same event but were never called to testify. Hence it's not suprising that it's "only" Willie who claims this.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 10:57 PM

Will you people admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you?

fullflavormenthol

14th September 2008, 10:58 PM

1. Yes you do. According to Rodriguez, there are other witnesses who experienced the same event, but were never called to testify.

And hence their testimony can not be taken into consideration because it never took place. We cannot evaluate that which is not present, present these people and their testimony and then a discussion can take place. You are presenting non-evidence as evidence and it doesn't work that way.

2. The whole "memory is highly unreliable and malleable" thing is nothing but a cop out--for you can use that excuse to dismiss out of hand any eye-witness claim.

No that is fact given the numerous studies done on the subject of eye witness testimony, and the belief in the infallibility of eye witness testimony is the reason there are so many people being released from prison due to DNA evidence being introduced in their defense.

STILL...we are only talking about one person's testimony.

Pardalis

14th September 2008, 11:06 PM

1. According to Rodriguez, there are other witnesses who experienced the same event, but were never called to testify.

As fullflavormenthol told you a minute ago, we can't determine that if these witnesses never spoke out. If these testimonies don't exist we don't know if that's true. These witnesses so far exist in Rodriguez' imagination.

This is exactly what fullflavormenthol just told you.

Do you even read the responses you get?

The whole "memory is highly unreliable and malleable" thing is nothing but a cop out--for you can use that excuse to dismiss out of hand any eye-witness claim.No, this is not a cop-out, it's a rational explanation. Ask any cop or first responders, first witness accounts are never accurate, and they almost never correlate exactly with each other. They take their testimonies and try to see which ones fit the most together, and that'll be the truth, or at least a good approximation of what happened. The rest is dismissed, not because the people have lied, but because people remember incorrectly, especially when it's about a surprise stressful event nobody saw coming.

Let me try to explain this to you one more time, then I'm through.

Rodriguez was going through his normal routine when a big explosion which lifted him off the ground shook the entire building. He thinks it came from downstairs because the whole building shook. you got to take into consideration reverberation, and the fact that when the plane struck, the entire structure was shaken, to its very foundations. He was near the ground, which is what absorbed the shock.

Also, he couldn't have known at the time it was a plane that crashed, how could he have possibly known that? He figured out it was a plane that crashed into the building much later, like everybody else, well after he heard the noise. So this means he can't know for sure when exactly the plane struck, because he didn't know a plane struck until much later. This event was a complete shock, a total surprise, he couldn' thave known exactly what was happening. He remembered, and assembled his memories into a coherent narrative (what all people instinctively do) after the facts. Also, he couldn't have looked at his watch, because that's not the normal reflex one has after hearing an explosion to check one's watch. People always approximate the time an event occured, because usually people don't think to look at their watches when a shocking event occurs. His memories, and testimonies, are an afterthought.

And as I said in my post above, a deflagration that shakes an entire foundation is more likely to have been the Boeing 767 crashing into the tower. that would be consistent with the shock a building would endure.

The second explosion seems less tremendous, which would seem to indicate it's the elevators falling down or the jet fuel coming down the shafts, since it came after the initial bang, and that's when people came out of the elevators with their skins falling off their arms.

Now if you can't and won't at least acknowledge this rational explanation, and keep to your same questions without addressing these points, the points I have made in my previous posts and the points other posters have made then there is absolutely no reason to keep entertaining your silly games.

fullflavormenthol

14th September 2008, 11:12 PM

Now if you can't and won't at least acknowledge this rational explanation, and keep to your same questions without addressing these points, the points I have made in my previous posts and the points other posters have made then there is absolutely no reason to keep entertaining your silly games.

I think this is the best course to take. It is the classic "Prove the Negative" demand, and then taking the inabilty to prove a negative as proof of ones point. Like you wrote, ten pages later this thread will still be going with him refusing to acknowledge the fallacious framework his non-argument is based on. I say non-argument, because he shields himself by claiming that he isn't really claiming anything.

AJM8125

14th September 2008, 11:13 PM

As fullflavormenthol told you a minute ago, we can't determine that if these witnesses never spoke out. If these testimonies don't exist we don't know if that's true. These witnesses so far exist in Rodriguez' imagination.

This is exactly what fullflavormenthol just told you.

Do you even read the responses you get?

No, this is not a cop-out, it's a rational explanation. Ask any cop or first responders, first witness accounts are never accurate, and they almost never correlate exactly with each other. they take their testimonies and try to see which ones fit the most together, and that'll be the truth, or at least a clue of what happened. The rest is dismissed, not because the people have lied, but because people remember incorrectly, especially when it's about a surprise stressful event nobody saw coming.

Let me try to explain this to you one more time, then I'm through.

Rodriguez was going through his normal routine when a big explosion which lifted him off the ground shook the entire building. He thinks it came from downstairs because the whole building shook. you got to take into consideration reverberation, and the fact that when the plane struck, the entire structure was shaken, to its very foundations. He was near the ground, which is what absorbed the shock.

Also, he couldn't have known at the time it was a plane that crashed, how could he have possibly known that? He figured out it was a plane that crashed into the building much later, like everybody else, well after he heard the noise. So this means he can't know for sure when exactly the plane struck, because he didn't know a plane struck until much later. This event was a complete shock, a total surprise, he couldn' thave known exactly what was happening. He remembered, and assembled his memories into a coherent narrative (what all people instinctively do) afte the facts. Also, he couldn't have looked at his watch, because that's not the normal reflex one has after hearing an explosion to check one's watch. People always approximate the time an event occured, because usually people don't think to look at their watches when a shcoking event occurs. His memories, and testimonies, are an afterthought.

And as I said in my post above, a deflagration that shakes an entire foundation is more likely to have been the Boeing 767 crashing into the tower. that would be consistent with the shock a building would endure.

The second explosion seems less tremendous, which would seem to indicate it's the elevators falling down or the jet fuel coming down the shafts, since it came after the initial band, and that's when people came out of the elevators with their skins falling off their arms.

Now if you can't and won't at least acknowledge this rational explanation, and keep to your same questions without addressing these points, the points I have made in my previous posts and the points other posters have made then there is absolutely no reason to keep entertaining your silly games.

Wow. I was just going to say that he's lied so much, it's hard to believe anything he's ever said, past or present. But what you said is waaaaaaaaay better. :D

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 11:14 PM

And hence their testimony can not be taken into consideration because it never took place. We cannot evaluate that which is not present, present these people and their testimony and then a discussion can take place. You are presenting non-evidence as evidence and it doesn't work that way.

No that is fact given the numerous studies done on the subject of eye witness testimony, and the belief in the infallibility of eye witness testimony is the reason there are so many people being released from prison due to DNA evidence being introduced in their defense.

STILL...we are only talking about one person's testimony.

You are, again, misrepresenting what I say. So I'll just get ask my question and hope for a direct answer: Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?

Pardalis

14th September 2008, 11:20 PM

I think this is the best course to take. It is the classic "Prove the Negative" demand, and then taking the inabilty to prove a negative as proof of ones point. Like you wrote, ten pages later this thread will still be going with him refusing to acknowledge the fallacious framework his non-argument is based on. I say non-argument, because he shields himself by claiming that he isn't really claiming anything.

Yeah, the old "agnostic" shtick. I'm afraid RedIbis played that one to death.

fullflavormenthol

14th September 2008, 11:28 PM

You are, again, misrepresenting what I say. So I'll just get ask my question and hope for a direct answer: Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?
Merely claiming that I am misrepresenting what you said doesn't mean I am, stop misrepresenting me. Given that his claims don't fit with what we know, than I will say that he is merely mistaken. So I would say is claims are false because he is making claims to knowledge that he did not posses at the time.

Pardalis has covered this, but you seem to avoid his points. But, the agnostic nonsense is old.

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 11:36 PM

Merely claiming that I am misrepresenting what you said doesn't mean I am, stop misrepresenting me.

"You are presenting non-evidence as evidence and it doesn't work that way."

It's false that I was presenting non-evidence as evidence. Hence you misrepresented me, like you did before.

Given that his claims don't fit with what we know, than I will say that he is merely mistaken. So I would say is claims are false because he is making claims to knowledge that he did not posses at the time.

This, of course, begs the question because you are assuming he's "mistaken" without any hard evidence. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?

(btw, there is a point to my question - if you will simply answer it honestly, we can proceed).

Pardalis

14th September 2008, 11:39 PM

How can Rodriguez tell apart a bomb explosion from a jumbo jet crashing into a building, when he was never before in any of those circumstances?

Jonnyclueless

14th September 2008, 11:45 PM

Again, on what basis do you dismiss his claim (and the alleged testimony of others who say the same) that an explosion below him occurred before the plane crash?

No one dismisses his testimony, it's his speculation that is dismissed. It's not that people are dismissing him feeling an explosion below him, it's the baseless claims that they were bombs. It's him claiming that the explosion occured before the plane hit when he would have absolutely no way of seeing the plane hit from inside the basement that gets dismissed. Or perhaps you can present some evidence that shows how he could visually see the plane hit while in the basement of the building? Because all I see his him recalling sounds, which travel at different speeds through different materials and based on time which is ALWAYS distorted (hence in big events time always seems to slow down and things that are only a fraction of a second feel like minutes).

AND, there were 1000s and 1000s of people there who were part of the experience and they were not all asked to testify. So why should Willie's testimony be used and if the others had the same testimony, then what would be the point of redundant testimony?

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 11:53 PM

How can Rodriguez tell apart a bomb explosion from a jumbo jet crashing into a building, when he was never before in any of those circumstances?

How can you objectively evaluate the validity of his claim when you misrepresent it? Point to where in the video he says he heard "a bomb?"

More importantly, will you answer my question? Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

radical_logic

14th September 2008, 11:59 PM

No one dismisses his testimony, it's his speculation that is dismissed.

Will you admit, then, that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

Pardalis

15th September 2008, 12:01 AM

One way I see Rodriguez' persistence in pushing for his view of what happened is that without that aura of conspiracy around his testimony, he would be like all the other heroes of 9/11: he would of course be remembered for his bravery, but it would fade in time and not be mentioned outside the anniversary of the events or in documentaries. It's unfortunate but it's a fact of life. People move on.

The fact that his testimony differs from everyone else's is exactly what's keeping him in the spotlight. He's found a loophole to allow him to keep telling his story without people saying:" OK, we've heard it already, you're a hero, we got it, congrats... can we go now?" Another hero wouldn't go around the world to keep telling his story, make "motivational speeches", another hero would gladly move on. The conspiracy is the angle he found for his story to be kept alive.

At least IMO.

BTW, this is not in response to Radical Logic, there are other things to be said in this thread.

Pardalis

15th September 2008, 12:03 AM

How can you objectively evaluate the validity of his claim when you misrepresent it? Point to where in the video he says he heard "a bomb?"

More importantly, will you answer my question? Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

I won't if you're not going to acknowledge my lenghty post earlier. I put some thought into it, the least you could do is read it.

Also read fullflavormenthol, WildCat and Jonnyclueless' posts, they make excellent and very rational points.

fullflavormenthol

15th September 2008, 12:09 AM

"You are presenting non-evidence as evidence and it doesn't work that way."

It's false that I was presenting non-evidence as evidence. Hence you misrepresented me, like you did before.

Wait? You want us to consider testimony that never took place as evidence, and yet you accuse me of misrepresentation when I (and others) call you out on it?

You are trying to present non-evidence as evidence. Sorry, that isn't a misrepresentation. Misrepresentation isn't tearing apart your argument and you getting upset about it.

Oh and I have answered your question, but you are trying to force a complex question into a yes or no box; it isn't that simple.

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 12:10 AM

I won't if you're not going to acknowledge my lenghty post earlier. I put some thought into it, the least you could do is read it.

Also read fullflavormenthol, WildCat and Jonnyclueless' posts, they make excellent and very rational points.

I've read everything. It will be easier to address the substance of that long post if you will provide an honest answer.

Pardalis

15th September 2008, 12:12 AM

*puts Radical Logic on ignore*

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 12:13 AM

You are trying to present non-evidence as evidence.

Again, this is utterly false.

Oh and I have answered your question, but you are trying to force a complex question into a yes or no box; it isn't that simple.

So you will not say that you DON'T know his claims are false?

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 12:14 AM

I'll put it this way: Do you have any hard or compelling evidence to suggest that his claims are false?

fullflavormenthol

15th September 2008, 12:18 AM

Again, this is utterly false.

No...you continually present the "alleged testimony" claimed of other witnesses by Rodriguez as corroboration of his statements. You then call it a misrepresentation when we tell you that you can't do that because none of these statements are on the record (any record) to be evaluated. All we have is the word of Rodriguez, and no corroborating evidence, physical or eye witness.

So no, you have presented non-evidence as evidence despite trying to claim anything else.

I cannot prove a negative, but I would say that there is no evidence to prove Rodriguez's claims true.

fullflavormenthol

15th September 2008, 12:19 AM

duplicate

Jonnyclueless

15th September 2008, 12:22 AM

Will you admit, then, that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

That is why we use evidence. There is no evidence of bombs or any of the things that the conspiracy theorists claim. So what is the issue or problem here?

uk_dave

15th September 2008, 12:24 AM

I'll put it this way: Do you have any hard or compelling evidence to suggest that his claims are false?

Yes, that he's never provided hard or compelling evidence that his claims are true.

Jonnyclueless

15th September 2008, 12:28 AM

It's also been shown that despite his continual claims of being the last man out, that he clearly was not the last man out. But here in the US, we have a thing called due process. And this means we don't go on witch hunts and jail people for no reason. People need to be proven guilty. We don't win a lawsuit by saying "well, you can't prove the accuser is wrong". That would be evidence of non-evidence, which radical is using and pretending that he is not.

If you're going to start a lawsuit and claim the government is in a big cover up conspiracy, then you're gonna need evidence. So far old Willie has provided no evidence, and thus he has gotten nowhere. It's really not that hard to figure out.

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 12:55 AM

No...you continually present the "alleged testimony" claimed of other witnesses by Rodriguez as corroboration of his statements.

No, I have not. I have asserted the alleged existence of witnesses who might possibly corroborate Rodriguez's statements.

You then call it a misrepresentation when we tell you that you can't do that because none of these statements are on the record (any record) to be evaluated. All we have is the word of Rodriguez, and no corroborating evidence, physical or eye witness.

Again, in answer to the questions I've asked you, my answer is: I don't know. Hence I am not using their alleged testimony to corroborate anything. I simply pointed out that it's conceivable that they could corroborate his testimony.

So no, you have presented non-evidence as evidence despite trying to claim anything else.

False, again.

I cannot prove a negative, but I would say that there is no evidence to prove Rodriguez's claims true.

I never said there was. Again, will you admit that you just don't know? Yes or no?

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 12:57 AM

That is why we use evidence. There is no evidence of bombs or any of the things that the conspiracy theorists claim. So what is the issue or problem here?

Rodriguez claims to have heard an explosion, not "a bomb," from under him - which also lifted him and others up - before the plane struck the tower.

He also asserts that he gave a list of witnesses to the 9/11 Commission who heard and felt the same explosion.

Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 12:58 AM

Yes, that he's never provided hard or compelling evidence that his claims are true.

So your "hard" evidence that his claims are false is his lack of evidence that they are true? This is logic in your world?

uk_dave

15th September 2008, 01:47 AM

So your "hard" evidence that his claims are false is his lack of evidence that they are true? This is logic in your world?

Yep. What's it like in your world? Very scary I imagine.

If some idiot decides to claim that the moon is made of cheese, but offers absolutely no evidence that such a thing could be possible, whereas in the real world we know from earthbound studies of the moon and our understanding of physics, that there are no cows up there and no people to process the (missing) cows (missing) milk into cheese, we can take that as pretty hard evidence that the idiot is a liar/insane/ignorant.

fullflavormenthol

15th September 2008, 01:55 AM

No, I have not. I have asserted the alleged existence of witnesses who might possibly corroborate Rodriguez's statements.

As a fact that corroborates his testimony. Look back at your previous statements. If that is not what you meant than you needed to fully clarify what you meant in those statements.

Again, in answer to the questions I've asked you, my answer is: I don't know. Hence I am not using their alleged testimony to corroborate anything. I simply pointed out that it's conceivable that they could corroborate his testimony.

But you can't use a "there could possibly maybe be something to back this up out there" as a way to back up a statement. It isn't evidence. At minimum it is a piece of non-evidence presented to obscure what is known, and as such should be dropped from the discussion all together.

False, again.

Well that pretty much tells me I was right again.

I never said there was. Again, will you admit that you just don't know? Yes or no?

I already explained my position. Trying to use a false dichotomy won't strengthen your case or get the results you are after.

AJM8125

15th September 2008, 02:15 AM

Sounds like a whole bunch of radial logic in this thread.

Dave Rogers

15th September 2008, 03:15 AM

Rodriguez claims to have heard an explosion from under him - which also lifted him and others up - before the plane struck the tower. Is this claim true or false? If it's false, what's the evidence for its falsity?

False dilemma, as usual. The claim cannot be evaluated as true or false, as there is no mechanism for Rodriguez to have determined with any certainty the time at which the plane struck the tower from his position in the basement. Therefore, the data behind his claim has to be examined for consistency with other events. Please post Rodriguez's account of his specific experiences, stripped of his own commentary and interpretations; that constitutes the only realistic claim he can make.

Since I have over 400 + posts,

By my reckoning, you seem to have only about half a dozen posts, that you've just repeated over 394 times.

Dave

Tippit

15th September 2008, 05:03 AM

I think my bolding of his own words in the post above your half pyramid of money makes willies motives quite clear. there is no need to pin a dollar amount on what he possibly earned. As a truther perhaps you can pin a dollar amount on what he has donated to 9/11 victims. if any. See how that type of argument works?

No, I don't. As far as I can tell, William Rodriguez *is* a 9/11 victim. He lost his friends, he lost his job, and he lost his faith in his country on 9/11.

T.A.M.

15th September 2008, 05:07 AM

I bet there are plenty of doctors in the Baghdad burn unit that can tell you.

1. Lay off the personal insults. (you know what I am talking about)

2. I am totally opposed to the Iraq War, and I blame BUSH and CHENEY for misleading the USA into it.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

15th September 2008, 05:09 AM

Sounds like a whole bunch of radial logic in this thread.

That is because most of us (like me) likely have he/she on ignore by now.

TAM:)

Foolmewunz

15th September 2008, 05:31 AM

So your "hard" evidence that his claims are false is his lack of evidence that they are true? This is logic in your world?

Well, duuuh, Yeah! Someone makes outrageous claims and we should consider them false, if you're limiting yourself to black-and-white yes-or-no answers, UNLESS HE CAN PROVE THEM.

Would you rather have it that we keep an "open mind"? If Willy claimed that the explosions were from sixty-four Carmelite nuns farting in unison after a breakfast of kimchee and beans, there'd be no one to disprove it. Would you accept his wild claim as true with no evidence, whatsoever. No pictures of the nuns, no one who remembers them being at breakfast that morning, no one ever having heard of kimchee 'n beans?

"Well he says he knows of witnesses, so we should believe him." Why? He's had seven years, during which his various stories have gone through more changes than a chameleon on a kilt. Why hasn't he given any of these witnesses or any of their testimony to the major truthseekers out there just dying to get their hands on something to reopen the investigation?

What I fail to see is you keeping an open mind that he could be full of crap.

RedIbis

15th September 2008, 06:03 AM

1. Lay off the personal insults. (you know what I am talking about)

2. I am totally opposed to the Iraq War, and I blame BUSH and CHENEY for misleading the USA into it.

TAM:)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If by some chance this was insulting to you, I apologize. Again, my response was directed at the point you and WildCat? were making that people don't survive when close to a bomb explosion.

I was trying to illustrate the point that there are many survivors of such explosions, and they could be found in the Baghdad burn unit, for instance.

Again, if this hit a personal note, it was completely unintentional.

WildCat

15th September 2008, 06:14 AM

Stop it with the misrepresentation: There are, according to Rodriguez, other witnesses who experienced the same event but were never called to testify. Hence it's not suprising that it's "only" Willie who claims this.
Try to read with comprehension. There's no doubt an explosion occurred, and there are numerous witnesses to this event.

Where Willie stands all by his lonesome self is in his claim that it happened before the plane hit.

WildCat

15th September 2008, 06:21 AM

I was trying to illustrate the point that there are many survivors of such explosions, and they could be found in the Baghdad burn unit, for instance.
Problem is, you illustrated the point by your usual method - lying.

Bombs don't burn people, they blow them apart.

It's shrapnel setting fuel on fire in military vehicles that burns people. If you are close enough to the blast to be burnrd by it it doesn't matter, because you've just been blown to bits.

CHF

15th September 2008, 06:35 AM

I'll put it this way: Do you have any hard or compelling evidence to suggest that his claims are false?

- he changed his story in 2005
- his new story isn't corroborated by anyone else with him at the time
- his new story makes no bloody sense (basement bombs in a top-down collapse???)

ref

15th September 2008, 06:56 AM

Well, Willie is Willie again.

He says he told the 9/11 commission about the explosion below in the basement before the first plane hit, says this explosion lifted everyone (14 witnesses) in the office in the air. He also says these people confirm this story and he gave a list of those people to the commission.

Well, lucky him, we don't have a transcript of his 9/11 commission hearing, so we don't know what he said to the commission. Or did he say anything like this?

The 9/11 commission hearings were held between March 2003 and June 2004. I don't know when exactly William was testifying, but it has been said that he was one of the last ones to testify, so it must have been in 2004.

What else happened in 2004? In February 12, 2004 William attended a NIST Public Meeting in New York City. He surely mentioned the aforementioned facts to NIST as well? I mean, both the 9/11 commission hearing and the NIST Public Meeting took place almost at the same time.

But no. William made no reference to any of the stuff he claims he told to the 9/11 commission. No mention about the basement explosion before the first plane hit. No mention about the explosion lifting everybody in the air. No mention about 14 witnesses confirming his story.

Here is what he said to NIST on February 12, 2004:

Hi, I'm William Rodriguez. I'm not with the FDNY. Actually I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble.

I worked in the building for 20 years. I'm kind of here to pull NIST ears a little bit ‘cause I was with you guys in Congress. I was here when you came the second time. And I was never called. I was never called for my testimony. In a sense, I’ve been the expert for the media, for the actual media, on everything related to 9/11 and the last moments of the people that were there. I worked in the building for 20 years. And I have one of the few master keys that were available on 9/11. And I was being followed by the fire department and the police – the Port Authority department on that day. I was opening the doors. And I know for a fact that you haven't called people that worked for structural employees.

If you go, obviously, to the supervisors, and you go to the company, they’re going to try to keep this information. You should go directly to the employees that worked there for so many years. And get their experience. For example, I still have the pictures that I offered the NIST in Congress, on the hearings, of the stairs in the building. I still have them here. And I’ve never been called. I’ve got them all here.

Also, we told – ask the people from the asbestos removal business, because it was going on constantly. And that was one of the problems that I had with the – I was the person that cleaned the stairs in the building on the North Tower. And cleaning the stairs in the building gave me a personal look at what was going on. And I'm not an expert, but it made me an expert of what was happening that was wrong with the Port Authority. I remember on the 21st floor, on the 13th floor, there was structural damage on the staircases. I told this personally to Gene Morragio (ph) and Ed Strauss (ph) who are dead now, building operation managers of the Port Authority. And nothing was done with the structural damages. The stairs were cracking. The sheet rock, when I went up opening the doors, was falling on top of me and on top of the firemen constantly. And the swaying of the building made it easier for that to come off.

I remember listening to the fluorescent lights, the emergency lights that were in the building, cracking up in line; pop, pop, pop, pop, pop all the way to the bottom because of the swiveling. And one of the things, I mean, the sound of fear of the people on the floors was a constant reminder of what the fire department was trying to do that day, and the problems that we were experiencing. Not all the sprinkler systems worked. Not all the warble alarms on every floor worked.

The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying explosion, explosion, explosion. When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.

And so what I'm telling you this is, as I went up – from that moment, I got this guy out. I went up, I went back inside the building through the basement. And there was people stuck on the lower elevators, the lower freight elevators that were in the other basements. And I saved two guys from there, they are alive right now, and they haven't been called to testify what they went through either. The problems they have when they went into the elevators, how they stopped working and things like that.

The fire escapes, as being the person in charge of cleaning them, I had constant problems with the Port Authority, constant problems because they didn’t enforce, for example, the no-smoking law inside the stairs. I would have people in groups of five smoking on the stairs with trashcans inside the staircases, trashcans from the floors on a constant basis. And I will tell them, “You got to get out.” They’d say, you're not a cop. Only on two occasions, because I took pictures, and that’s the reason I have the pictures on the stairs because I didn't want to get – I was getting warnings from my cleaning company, constantly. You didn’t clean these areas. Yes, I did. Yes, I did. But they will go back and they will do it. They will leave and they will do all these problems over there.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pd f
PAGE 70

If he made no mention of these events to NIST on February 2004, did he actually make any mention of these events to the 9/11 commission in early 2004? Or is he just claiming he said this stuff to the 9/11 commission, because we cannot verify what he said to them?

T.A.M.

15th September 2008, 08:53 AM

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If by some chance this was insulting to you, I apologize. Again, my response was directed at the point you and WildCat? were making that people don't survive when close to a bomb explosion.

I was trying to illustrate the point that there are many survivors of such explosions, and they could be found in the Baghdad burn unit, for instance.

Again, if this hit a personal note, it was completely unintentional.

As I am a physician, I took your "doctors in Baghdad" remark that way. If it was unintentional, then fair enough.

As for the comparison, I think the point we were making was the proximity to the alleged explosion (from an alleged explosive), with an absence of mechanical trauma.

TAM:)

Jonnyclueless

15th September 2008, 09:15 AM

Rodriguez claims to have heard an explosion, not "a bomb," from under him - which also lifted him and others up - before the plane struck the tower.

He also asserts that he gave a list of witnesses to the 9/11 Commission who heard and felt the same explosion.

Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

Actually he DID say a bomb. But if wee were to ignore him claiming to have heard a bomb (which he did, along with his claim in a lawsuit that light 93 was shot down with microwave weapons), what seems to be the problem?

As to your question, yes we DO know that many o his claims are 100% untrue with no doubt. And even his claim that he dropped his lawsuit is untrue as it was thrown out for being groundless.

Do you admit that many of his claims are proven untrue?

16.5

15th September 2008, 09:19 AM

I just scanned this thread.

Did anyone post the link to Willie's phone interview Willie gave on 9/11/01?

You know, where he did not mention an explosion but referred to a "rumbling"?

Jonnyclueless

15th September 2008, 09:25 AM

What someone should do is post the one form 9/11 along with his later ones and chart it out so it's easy to see how much his story changes as he sees he isn't getting the attention he hoped for.

orignally: Slow rumble
then: Explosion
then: Explosion that lifted everyone off the ground
Then: Bomb
Then after lawsuit dismissed: Back to explosion that lifted everyone off the ground.

funk de fino

15th September 2008, 09:36 AM

Willie is economical with the truth

twinstead

15th September 2008, 09:54 AM

Just scanned this thread. We're asked to keep an open mind about extraordinary claims with no corroborating evidence to back them up. Nice.

Oh yea, more changes than a chameleon on a kilt I LOVE it!

Walter Ego

15th September 2008, 09:57 AM

I just scanned this thread.

Did anyone post the link to Willie's phone interview Willie gave on 9/11/01?

You know, where he did not mention an explosion but referred to a "rumbling"?

The interview was on CNN. Here's a quote from the transcript (my bolding).

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement which is a support floor for the maintenance company and we hear like a big rumble, not like an impact, like a rumble, like something, like moving furniture on a, on a massive way and all of a sudden we hear another rumble and a guy comes running, running into our office and all his skin was off his body,all his skin. We, we went crazy, we started screaming, we told him to get out. We took everybody out of the office outside to the loading dock area and then I went back in and when I went back in I saw people, I heard people that were stuck on an elevator, a freight elevator because the elevators went down and water was going in and they were probably getting drowned and we get a couple of pipes and open the elevator and got the people out.

http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=34705

ref

15th September 2008, 10:15 AM

Go to the great 911myths.com for the clips:

http://911myths.com/index.php/William_Rodriguez

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 10:43 AM

As a fact that corroborates his testimony.

Nope, I have not done this. STOP IT WITH THE MISREPRESENTATION. I presented the testimony of those other witnesses as a possible way to corroborate his testimony (it all depends on what they say).

But you can't use a "there could possibly maybe be something to back this up out there" as a way to back up a statement. It isn't evidence. At minimum it is a piece of non-evidence presented to obscure what is known, and as such should be dropped from the discussion all together.

Again, this is a strawman. I haven't used those witnesses to actually "back up a statement."

Trying to use a false dichotomy won't strengthen your case or get the results you are after.

Either his claims are true or false. Either you have good evidence to accept his claims or not. If not, then the only rational position to adopt is to admit that you simply don't know. Be a skeptic - but be a intellectually honest one.

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 10:47 AM

Yep. What's it like in your world? Very scary I imagine.

If some idiot decides to claim that the moon is made of cheese, but offers absolutely no evidence that such a thing could be possible, whereas in the real world we know from earthbound studies of the moon and our understanding of physics, that there are no cows up there and no people to process the (missing) cows (missing) milk into cheese, we can take that as pretty hard evidence that the idiot is a liar/insane/ignorant.

False analogy. The green-cheese example actually conflicts with known physical laws--Rodriguez's claims (the one in the video) do not. So you won't admit that you just don't know?

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 10:59 AM

False dilemma, as usual. The claim cannot be evaluated as true or false,

Wrong. Either his claims are true or false--what other option is there? Either you have good evidence to support the charge that they are true, or good evidence to support the charge that they are false--what other option is there? If you have no evidence in support of the charge that they are false, then the only rational position is to admit you don't know whether his claims are false--what other option is there?

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 11:04 AM

Well, duuuh, Yeah! Someone makes outrageous claims and we should consider them false, if you're limiting yourself to black-and-white yes-or-no answers, UNLESS HE CAN PROVE THEM.

What's so outrageous about the claim that he heard and felt an explosion from below - which also lifted him and others off the ground - before he heard the explosion from above?

"Well he says he knows of witnesses, so we should believe him." Why?

I never said or implied this. He claims to have given a list of witnesses to the 9/11 Commission who experienced the same event as he did. Do you know if his claim is false? Yes or not?

What I fail to see is you keeping an open mind that he could be full of crap.

He could be full of crap. I'll admit that--but I just don't know. Will you admit the same?

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 11:09 AM

Actually he DID say a bomb.

You're a liar. He did NOT say "a bomb" in the Rosie-video. I'm tired of your dishonesty and intellectual laziness.

Do you admit that many of his claims are proven untrue?

Apparently, you can't read. I HAVE ALREADY SAID: I don't know if his claims are true or false, and therefore I have already admitted that his claims remain unproven.

STOP IT WITH THE DODGE. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? Will you? Yes or no?

ref

15th September 2008, 11:10 AM

What's so outrageous about the claim that he heard and felt an explosion from below - which also lifted him and others off the ground - before he heard the explosion from above?

He started making this claim around October, 2004.

He did not mention anything like this in the CNN interview on 9/11/01 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html).
He did not mention anything like this in the CNN interview on 9/11/02 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html).
He did not mention anything like this in NIST Public Hearing (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pd f) on February 12, 2004.

Why did he wait 3 years to make this claim? Why did he wait until the Commission report was out to make this claim? Why does he insist he presented this claim to 9/11 Commission in 2004, but did not present this claim to NIST in 2004 when he was heard?

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 11:12 AM

He started making this claim around October, 2004.

He did not mention anything like this in the CNN interview on 9/11/01 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html).
He did not mention anything like this in the CNN interview on 9/11/02 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html).
He did not mention anything like this in NIST Public Hearing (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pd f) on February 12, 2004.

Why did he wait 3 years to make this claim? Why did he wait until the Commission report was out to make this claim? Why does he claim he presented this theory to 9/11 Commission in 2004, but did not present this theory to NIST in 2004 when he was heard?

You ask as if there are obvious answers to those questions. I don't know, and neither do you. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?

Tbone

15th September 2008, 11:14 AM

16.5

15th September 2008, 11:15 AM

You ask as if there are obvious answers to those questions. I don't know, and neither do you. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?

Hmmm, lets do this: I will admit that Rodriquez is not credible. Will you admit that Rodriquez is not credible? I will. Will you? Yes or no

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 11:17 AM

Unbelievable. After four pages of this nonsense, not one hack-"debunker" will admit that he doesn't know whether the two claims i noted are true or false. Not one.

Walter Ego

15th September 2008, 11:18 AM

This is a scan of a New York Sun article (no date) from Mark Roberts' 9/11 pages. Not easy to read but worth the effort. Willie's association with James Randi is mentioned.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/RodriguezSun.jpg

It makes clear that, while not discounting Willie's genuine heroism on 9/11, the tragic events of that day and his role in them were his ticket to ride to fame and notoriety.

ref

15th September 2008, 11:19 AM

You ask as if there are obvious answers to those questions. I don't know, and neither do you. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?

It's pretty obvious he didn't suddenly start remembering things better 3 years later. I or you don't know exactly why he suddenly started changing his story. We however do know, that he did change his story.

Of course, since you are after a 100% answer, we cannot say we are 100% sure that he didn't feel or experience anything he now claims he did. But taking into account all his statements and behaviour before and after October 2004, it's a safe bet to determine that his earlier comments are more correct than his later ones.

radical_logic

15th September 2008, 11:23 AM

I'm done. You people have proven yourselves to be nothing but pseudo-intellectual hacks. Good day.

16.5

15th September 2008, 11:27 AM

I'm done. You people have proven yourselves to be nothing but pseudo-intellectual hacks. Good day.

Unbelievable. After four pages of this nonsense, not one hack-"Truther" will admit that Willie is not at all credible. Not one.

CHF

15th September 2008, 12:11 PM

You ask as if there are obvious answers to those questions. I don't know, and neither do you. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?

Actually the answer is pretty obvious to most people, RL.

Willy is LYING.

He suddenly changed his story in late 2004/early 2005 once he realized there was a bunch of losers out there willing to pay attention to him so long as he talked about "massive explosions before the plane hit" rather than his previous story of hearing a sound like "furnature moving." His nonsense about being "the last man out" also made for a good selling point, even though it's an even easier lie to catch.

But he doesn't care how silly his lies are because he knows that his audience (ie. YOU) desperately want to believe his story and so he won't be bothered with tough questions like "why did this all suddenly occur to you 3+ years later?"

dudalb

15th September 2008, 12:13 PM

And Radical Logic leaves the room in anger, swearing never to return, and he will be back within a few minutes. High School Drama Queen behavior at it;s worst.
But not for me. I just put the guy on ignore.

Jonnyclueless

15th September 2008, 12:25 PM

You're a liar. He did NOT say "a bomb" in the Rosie-video. I'm tired of your dishonesty and intellectual laziness.

I am NOT a liar, he DID saya a bomb. Just because he didn't say it in the Rosie video does not mean he didn't say it. What is wrong with you? You call me dishonest when you keep trying to manipulate what people say by picking and choosing what they said and when? YOU are a bold faced LIAR. How can you be this dishonest?

Apparently, you can't read. I HAVE ALREADY SAID: I don't know if his claims are true or false, and therefore I have already admitted that his claims remain unproven.

STOP IT WITH THE DODGE. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? Will you? Yes or no?

Maybe you can't comprehend. I wrote that response BECAUSE of you making that statement. HEllo? This is Earth, are we reaching?

What I admit is that There is no evidence to support his claims. Do you admit there is no evidence to support his claims, yes or no? I admit I don't know if his statements are true because there is no evidence to show they are in any way shape or form true.

If someone claimed the moon was made of cheese and had a amchine to capture people's souls, i would have no way to know whether those claims are true or false. But because there is no evidence to prove them, then they are false. The obligation is of the person making the claim. you are being dishonest by using non-evidence as evidence. Imagine if you were on trial for murder and the prosecution said "Well, someone said he did it and you can't confirm whether that person is correct or not, can you?". Would you like that kind of statement to be taken seriously if you were on trial? Would you not want them to provide proof?

This just proves you, like littel Willie are on a witch hunt. You know you can't back your beliefs up so you use these dishonest tactics to try and mislead people.

ref

15th September 2008, 12:26 PM

The public will gain access to the 9/11 Commission records (http://www.archives.gov/research/9-11-commission/) in 2009. The records are stored in the National Archives.

Any bets, did Willie say the things he claims he said to the commission?

CHF

15th September 2008, 12:29 PM

dudalb

15th September 2008, 01:00 PM

And wow, being a Truther has sure helped Rosie's career.has'nt it?

NoZed Avenger

15th September 2008, 01:06 PM

And wow, being a Truther has sure helped Rosie's career.has'nt it?

That's what happens when you challenge the all-powerful NWO.

CHF

15th September 2008, 01:17 PM

What's up with Rosie these days anyway?

Other than hangin' with Willy I mean.

dudalb

15th September 2008, 02:02 PM

She is not doing much except for her blog. She keeps saying she is nearing a deal on a new syndicated show but she has been saying that since she left "The View",and you are not hearing anything about it from anybody but Rosie.Draw your own conclusions.
Apparetnly she tried to promote herself as the new host to replace Bob Barker on "The Price Is Right" but fell flat on her face. Drew Carey got the job.
Yeah, mouthing crap 9/11 conspiracy theories will really make your career catch on fire.

A W Smith

15th September 2008, 06:05 PM

No, I don't. As far as I can tell, William Rodriguez *is* a 9/11 victim. He lost his friends, he lost his job, and he lost his faith in his country on 9/11.

So hes fund raising only for a single 9/11 victim? himself? and not the friends you say he lost? And changing his story to fit his audience.

fullflavormenthol

15th September 2008, 08:35 PM

Nope, I have not done this. STOP IT WITH THE MISREPRESENTATION. I presented the testimony of those other witnesses as a possible way to corroborate his testimony (it all depends on what they say).

Cyber-screaming at me won't help your position. You are using the "alleged witness testimony" to imply that there is corroboration to the unconfirmed statements of Rodriguez.

I also take issue with even writting that you "presented testimony", because the fact is that there isn't any testimony to present. It is a non-issue, and like I wrote it should be dropped.

Again, this is a strawman. I haven't used those witnesses to actually "back up a statement."

Of course you have. I mean there is no other logical reason to even attempt to introduce such non-evidence. Oh and it isn't a strawman, you would do well to research the meaning of this term before throwing it around.

Either his claims are true or false. Either you have good evidence to accept his claims or not. If not, then the only rational position to adopt is to admit that you simply don't know. Be a skeptic - but be a intellectually honest one.

No, his claims could be partially true or they could be mostly false with a slight amount of truth. Although this is meaningless because the above qoute is a text book example of a false dilema, and clearly you fail to comprehend what is written.

I'm done. You people have proven yourselves to be nothing but pseudo-intellectual hacks. Good day.

Sure we have...or you have proven yourself to be a truther who believes that bombs were in the basement; but instead of arguing the point you play the agnostic game and try to engage us in a false dichotomy and then run off in a puff because we are intellectually honest enough to call you on it.

Pardalis

15th September 2008, 08:39 PM

What's up with Rosie these days anyway?

Other than hangin' with Willy I mean.

Apparently they married. The thread is titled "Rosie & Willie Rodriguez" after all. ;)

AJM8125

15th September 2008, 08:44 PM

Apparently they married. The thread is titled "Rosie & Willie Rodriguez" after all. ;)

Ew. What if they... breed? those poor kids won't stand a chance...

Max Photon

15th September 2008, 09:58 PM

If there are multiple of sub-levels in the basement, and Willie was on the top, why haven't more individuals that were closer to the basement explosion come forward?

Wow according to slick Willie 14 people in his office were lifted up by the blast at 846am yet NO ONE lese besides slick willie has every mentioned this?

If more came forward corroborating the story, would you give the story more credence, or simply find more ways to dismiss it?

Max Photon

15th September 2008, 10:02 PM

Any truther want to explain how someone can get close enough to a bomb to get severely burned, and not get blown to smithereens? Any idea what kind of bomb can do that?

Not that I am advocating it but...

from Wikipedia > Bomb:

"A thermal wave is created by the sudden release of heat caused by an explosion. Military bomb tests have documented temperatures of 3000 to 4500˚F. While capable of inflicting severe to catastrophic burns and causing secondary fires, thermal wave effects are considered very limited in range compared to shock and fragmentation. This rule has been challenged however by military development of thermobaric weapons that employ a combination of negative shock wave effects and extreme temperature to incinerate objects within the blast radius."

Max Photon

15th September 2008, 10:20 PM

Could someone kindly explain why there is such a savage hatred of William Rodriguez?

(Is it because he's Jewish?)

I do not see savagery or hatred toward Rodriguez here. Dismay, disdain, and/or disgust, perhaps, but neither savagery nor hatred.

LashL,

William Rodriguez is a victim of the 9/11 crime. He was there. He is permanently scarred. He lost friends. For seven years he has dedicated himself to helping other victims of that crime.

Mr. Rodriguez was banned from JREF, and yet management is happy to allow this thread about him that he can't respond to. The thread's opening piece calls Willie a whore, and accuses him of exploiting the recent tragic suicide of his friend and colleague. Posts that follow heap insult on injury.

Those of us capable of empathy see the unfair attack on Willie as savage and full of hatred. (Perhaps you lack that function.)

Anyway, I suspect - and this is just a wild guess - that if it were your name in the OP, and you were being called a whore, and you were being accused of exploiting a friend's suicide to make money, that you'd be upset, that you would see the attacks as savage and full of hatred, and that you'd go crying to management like a little baby.

But I could be wrong...

Max

(This thread is so regressive I'm seeing a red shift.)

Max Photon

15th September 2008, 10:34 PM

Could someone kindly explain why there is such a savage hatred of William Rodriguez?

(Is it because he's Jewish?)

Because he lies about 9/11 to make money.

he wants compensation for his 'truth"

Doesn't JREF make money off of 9/11?

Doesn't Hardfire sell nifty little trickets?

Isn't the military-industrial complex's Iraq-division making money off of 9/11?

I'm still curious how much money you think Willie has made - for himself - between 09/11/01 and 09/11/08.

Max Photon

15th September 2008, 10:39 PM

How can Rodriguez tell apart a bomb explosion from a jumbo jet crashing into a building, when he was never before in any of those circumstances?

Ms. Pardalis

Ms. Pardalis!

Can you turn off the hair-dryer
and put down the Sheeple Magazine?

Whew.....thank you.....

Um, Ms. Pardalis, if you remember:

Willie was in the tower during the 1993 bombing.

Max Photon

15th September 2008, 11:03 PM

Stop dodging what you posted.

Back it up or retract it.

Could someone enlighten me as to what this imbecilic post is referring to?

Jonnyclueless

15th September 2008, 11:04 PM

If more came forward corroborating the story, would you give the story more credence, or simply find more ways to dismiss it?

The number of people makes no difference. No one doubts that they think they thought a blast came from beneath them. If 1 million people made the same claim, it still would not make it true. Thinking a blast came from below is one thing. Claiming it was a bomb requires proof.

Someone having been employed during a bombing does not constitute evidence of a bomb.

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

15th September 2008, 11:22 PM

I'll put it this way: Do you have any hard or compelling evidence to suggest that his claims are false?

I do!
But Red ate it.

Dave Rogers

16th September 2008, 02:49 AM

Wrong. Either his claims are true or false--what other option is there? Either you have good evidence to support the charge that they are true, or good evidence to support the charge that they are false--what other option is there? If you have no evidence in support of the charge that they are false, then the only rational position is to admit you don't know whether his claims are false--what other option is there?

You're refuting your own argument with your final sentence. Since you have no evidence in support of the claims, your only rational position is to admit that you don't know whether the claims are entirely true, entirely false, or partly true, nor do you know whether any false claims are due to being mistaken or due to deliberate lying. As usual, though, for a conspiracy theorist, you're trying to simplify at least seven distinct possibilities (entirely true; partly true, partly deliberately false; partly true, partly mistaken; partly true, partly deliberately false, partly mistaken; entirely deliberately false; partly deliberately false, partly mistaken; entirely mistaken) to the false binary choice that Rodriguez's account is either entirely true, or entirely false.

Moving on from the basics, two important points are that (1) Rodriguez's claim rests on his having known at the time a piece of information he could not possibly have known at the time, namely the moment of impact of the plane, and (2) Rodriguez has changed his account repeatedly. From (2) alone, it is impossible that all his accounts are entirely true, therefore all but one must be at least partly false. Claiming that any single one is necessarily the true one is the special pleading fallacy.

Dave

Hokulele

16th September 2008, 03:17 AM

Mr. Rodriguez was banned from JREF, and yet management is happy to allow this thread about him that he can't respond to.

Incorrect. William Rodriguez requested that his account be set to unregistered status. When you look at his profile (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=16284), it is labeled "Guest" rather than "Suspended" or "Banned".

He could certainly reactivate his account and respond if he so wished.

MarkCorrigan

16th September 2008, 03:27 AM

LashL,

Those of us capable of empathy see the unfair attack on Willie as savage and full of hatred. (Perhaps you lack that function.)

(This thread is so regressive I'm seeing a red shift.)

Accusing someone of being a sociopath?

You're reported my son.

Darat

16th September 2008, 03:34 AM

...snip..

Mr. Rodriguez was banned from JREF

...snip...

No he wasn't he requested his account be set to unregistered.

Darat

16th September 2008, 03:35 AM

Doesn't JREF make money off of 9/11?

...snip...

No.

ref

16th September 2008, 03:51 AM

If you go to William's site (http://www.william911.com/) you'll see this message:

Announcing New Film "Last Man Out" To be released at the end of September. Explosive new testimony by survivors of 9/11. Pre-Order here!

If you scroll down the page, you will also see a sneak-peek of the film, an interview with Anthony Saltalamacia, not surprisingly praising Willie and basically retelling Willie's story. He also says he heard at least 10 explosions.

jmercer

16th September 2008, 04:35 AM

Mr. Rodriguez was banned from JREF

No he wasn't he requested his account be set to unregistered.

To clarify just a little bit... we do not ever delete member's accounts, even when they request it as Mr. Rodirguez did. (It would affect posts in the forum in terms of seeing who made them.)

Their accounts are set to unregistered instead; they can request to have the account reinstated at any time. Mr. Rodriguez has chosen not to do that.

Darat

16th September 2008, 04:46 AM

As Admin: And just to clarify the clarification we do not always agree to reactivate an unregistered account, that is at the discretion (of course) of the JREF and Admins.

NoZed Avenger

16th September 2008, 06:07 AM

Could someone enlighten me . . .

If it hasn't happened by now, I doubt it.

CHF

16th September 2008, 06:20 AM

RedIbis

16th September 2008, 06:23 AM

Why would anyone take Willy seriously when the very title of his movie is a lie?

Could you point me to the debunking of this claim? If he wasn't the last man out alive, who was? Thanks.

ref

16th September 2008, 07:29 AM

Could you point me to the debunking of this claim? If he wasn't the last man out alive, who was? Thanks.

Your favorite Gravy has answered this here:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/lastsurvivorpulledfromtherubble%3Fsavedhun

bonavada

16th September 2008, 07:32 AM

Could you point me to the debunking of this claim? If he wasn't the last man out alive, who was? Thanks.

Try THIS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/23/60II/main657404.shtml) for starters.
MORE HERE (http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/victims/wtcsurvivors.html)

BV

RedIbis

16th September 2008, 10:28 AM

Try THIS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/23/60II/main657404.shtml) for starters.
MORE HERE (http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/victims/wtcsurvivors.html)

BV

This is helpful information, but Rodriguez never claimed to be the last man rescued from the WTC. He claims he is the last man out before it collapsed.

Jonnyclueless

16th September 2008, 10:35 AM

So you think that the last man out came after the last people rescued? That's an interesting one.

CHF

16th September 2008, 10:57 AM

This is helpful information, but Rodriguez never claimed to be the last man rescued from the WTC. He claims he is the last man out before it collapsed.

:boggled:

Ah, so Willy must be making the distinction between people who were carried out in the arms of the FDNY and those who just sorta scampered out on their own. Or something....

Max Photon

16th September 2008, 10:58 AM

To clarify just a little bit... we do not ever delete member's accounts, even when they request it as Mr. Rodirguez did. (It would affect posts in the forum in terms of seeing who made them.)

Their accounts are set to unregistered instead; they can request to have the account reinstated at any time. Mr. Rodriguez has chosen not to do that.

As Admin: And just to clarify the clarification we do not always agree to reactivate an unregistered account, that is at the discretion (of course) of the JREF and Admins.

Okay, let's if I've got this straight: William Rodriguez was not banned from JREF; he requested to be unregistered. Would you reactivate his account if he requested to be re-registered?

chillzero

16th September 2008, 11:00 AM

I think that's a topic for the Forum Mgt section, and not this thread, which is starting to stray beyond thread drift.

Max Photon

16th September 2008, 11:09 AM

Accusing someone of being a sociopath?

You're reported my son.

I think you mean "sun".

ref

16th September 2008, 11:12 AM

This is helpful information, but Rodriguez never claimed to be the last man rescued from the WTC. He claims he is the last man out before it collapsed.

You are wrong. He said he was the last person pulled from the rubble.

Hi, I'm William Rodriguez. I'm not with the FDNY. Actually I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pd f
PAGE 70

Max Photon

16th September 2008, 11:17 AM

I think that's a topic for the Forum Mgt section, and not this thread, which is starting to stray beyond thread drift.

That's fair.

Anyway, I didn't intend to drift into discussing Willie's membership, so I don't need to discuss the topic any further.

And my apologies to management if I was incorrect about the status of his membership.

Max

bonavada

16th September 2008, 11:19 AM

This is helpful information, but Rodriguez never claimed to be the last man rescued from the WTC. He claims he is the last man out before it collapsed.

When you've finished red, put the ****ing goalposts back where they were.

BV

bonavada

16th September 2008, 11:41 AM

This is the guy we are discussing right?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=83&pictureid=350

That's an odd choice of buddy for Willie right there huh? How does the image above jive with you Red?

BV

Max Photon

16th September 2008, 11:41 AM

When you've finished red, put the ****ing goalposts back where they were.

... orders from a four-star gerund.

Max Photon

16th September 2008, 12:02 PM

Could someone kindly explain why there is such a savage hatred of William Rodriguez?

(Is it because he's Jewish?)

Because he lies about 9/11 to make money.

And how much money has he made?

but he does have an "organization" in place
why not try to book him for an appearance and find out?

heres a clue below of his motives

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/troofer-wars-dylan-avery-vs-william.html

It was said that the savage hatred focused here on William Rodriguez is because he lies about 9/11 to make money.

How much money has he made between 09/11/01 and 09/11/08? Let's just try for order of magnitude, shall we?

1 cent
10 cents
$1
$10
$100
$1,000
$10,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
$10,000,000
$100,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$10,000,000,000

Anyone?

I think my bolding of his own words in the post above your half pyramid of money makes willies motives quite clear. there is no need to pin a dollar amount on what he possibly earned. As a truther perhaps you can pin a dollar amount on what he has donated to 9/11 victims. if any. See how that type of argument works?

A W Smith,

Why don't you share with us what you interpret Willie's quote to mean. What is self-evident in your mind might not be so for others.

If you have charges, be specific.

he wants compensation for his 'truth"

Summary:

The savage hatred displayed here at JREF toward William Rodriguez is because he is an attention whore who lies about 9/11, exploits the tragedy of 9/11 victims - such as the recent suicide of his friend and colleague Kenny Johannemann - and then wants compensation - makes money! - from the prostitution of his "truth" (lies).

* * *

I thought William Rodriguez - through his organization - collects donations and modest speaking fees to support his effort to tell his story world-wide about his 9/11 experience, with a focus on helping other victims of the 9/11 crime.

Now it does take money to fly places. It does take money to stay somewhere, and eat, and get around. Most nonprofit organizations "make money" from whatever their cause is.

So are you guys disgusted that Willie brings in any money at all, even if it is for helping the crime victims on 9/11, or do you envision that he is greedily pocketing the money for himself?

Pardalis

16th September 2008, 12:07 PM

Um, Ms. Pardalis, if you remember:

Willie was in the tower during the 1993 bombing.

He never talks about it. Do you have a quote from him about his experience in the '93 bombing?

BTW it's Mr Pardalis.

Max Photon

16th September 2008, 12:20 PM

How can Rodriguez tell apart a bomb explosion from a jumbo jet crashing into a building, when he was never before in any of those circumstances?

Um, Ms. Pardalis, if you remember:

Willie was in the tower during the 1993 bombing.

He never talks about it. Do you have a quote from him about his experience in the '93 bombing?

Well before you speed away from the scene of this gruesome intellectual accident, can you at least get your facts straight:

- William Rodriguez was in WTC1 when it was hit by a jumbo jet;

- William Rodriguez was in WTC1 when it was hit by a large bomb explosion.

Max Photon

16th September 2008, 12:22 PM

BTW it's Mr Pardalis.

Sorry. You just ms so often that I naturally assumed...

Pardalis

16th September 2008, 12:25 PM

Do you have any quote from him talking about his experience in 1993?

bonavada

16th September 2008, 12:44 PM

So are you guys disgusted that Willie brings in any money at all, even if it is for helping the crime victims on 9/11, or do you envision that he is greedily pocketing the money for himself?

Maybe not disgusted but certainly bothered about his motives.
I'm reminded of the story of Tanya Head. The lady who did sterling work for but also conned genuine victims of 9-11 with untrue tales of derring-do and personal suffering. Her downfall came when she entered the media spotlight one day and her lies were illuminated for all to see. Perhaps when Willie is exposed to the attention he craves and similar scrutiny then we may learn the real truth of his claims. Until then I'll keep the NaCl handy and take a little every time his story changes.

BV

Max Photon

16th September 2008, 03:19 PM

Doesn't JREF make money off of 9/11?

No.

Well what are all those little JREF Donor signs for? Brains?

Jonnyclueless

16th September 2008, 03:21 PM

Well what are all those little JREF Donor signs for? Brains?

You do realize that this forum is merely a tiny sub-section of the forum, which itself is a sub-section of the Randi site right? And the reason for the 9/11 sub forum (which is a sub forum of a conspiracy sub forum) exists to keep this crap out of the legitimate discussion forums?

funk de fino

16th September 2008, 03:34 PM

You are wrong. He said he was the last person pulled from the rubble.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pd f
PAGE 70

A slam dunker for the Red one again. I predict he will avoid this thread from now on or have to admit Willie is a little liar.

Foolmewunz

16th September 2008, 05:29 PM

This is helpful information, but Rodriguez never claimed to be the last man rescued from the WTC. He claims he is the last man out before it collapsed.

Aww, that's so sweet!

Really, Red.... You just want so badly to believe that you will ignore just about anything, won't you?

And, Max...
The fact that you don't have a lot of information on the years-old issues surrounding some of these characters is pretty apparent. M. Pardalis (neither Ms. nor Mr., let's give him the proper honorific, monsieur"", s.v.p.) did not slip up in mentioning '93. Willie is a hero for all occasions!

Effective trolling requires that you keep changing the subject back to one of your pet non-theories. If you try to discuss actual events with the crew in this sub-forum, you're dealing with people who have discussed all these issues in minute details for years.

Oliver

16th September 2008, 05:50 PM

Doesn't JREF make money off of 9/11?

Doesn't Hardfire sell nifty little trickets?

Isn't the military-industrial complex's Iraq-division making money off of 9/11?

I'm still curious how much money you think Willie has made - for himself - between 09/11/01 and 09/11/08.

67 Trillion, I suppose after reading some hateful, meaningless replies in here.

MarkCorrigan

17th September 2008, 07:01 AM

I think you mean "sun".

Why would I mean "sun"? In what possible context could I refer to you as a star?

Or is your ego so inflated you think I'm saying you are an illuminator?

Max Photon

17th September 2008, 10:34 AM

Walter Ego?

CHF?

Pardalis?

LashL?

Anyone?

Post #181 is sitting patiently, awaiting a response.

A W Smith

17th September 2008, 12:38 PM

Walter Ego?

CHF?

Pardalis?

LashL?

Anyone?

Post #181 is sitting patiently, awaiting a response.

Even avery has lost respect for him

So, you're selling witnesses, William? Worse than that, you're withholding the ones that were never interviewed before ... for money?! The truth isn't about getting "compensated."

Dylan, Korey, and Bermas couldn't be more self-less with the movement. I hoped you would be like them in this matter.

Forgive me, but you've lost my respect.

Max Photon

17th September 2008, 01:22 PM

Nice non-answer.

WildCat

17th September 2008, 01:33 PM

So are you guys disgusted that Willie brings in any money at all, even if it is for helping the crime victims on 9/11, or do you envision that he is greedily pocketing the money for himself?
How much money has he donated to victims?

Why would you ask us how much he has made, do you think we're his accountants?

Who knows, maybe he just likes to hang out with retarded celebs like Rosie. What is certain is that he has used his lies about 9/11 to benefit Willie Rodriquez.

Max Photon

17th September 2008, 09:40 PM

Another nice non-answer.

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP

17th September 2008, 10:51 PM

So are you guys disgusted that Willie brings in any money at all, even if it is for helping the crime victims on 9/11,
Got proof of this?

or do you envision that he is greedily pocketing the money for himself?
We know all about it.
Originally posted by Gravy:

Edit: And what is your organization? When I click on the Paypal "donate" button on your site, it says "William Rodriguez Mission." Does that money go to your personal account?

Ah! the Twoofer mind never ceases to amaze me!
Or could it be that they were actually born idiots?

ref

18th September 2008, 12:12 AM

Where did Red go?

Jonnyclueless

18th September 2008, 12:20 AM

funny. If the victims get money from the government, it's blood money. If they get it from Willie (which is doubtful) then it's helping crime victims.

Not to get too OT, but did anyone see the documentary on some of the people who got money rom the attack? Lot of families ended up breaking apart over the money issues. Kinda sad.

ref

18th September 2008, 12:22 AM

Summary:

The savage hatred displayed here at JREF toward William Rodriguez is because he is an attention whore who lies about 9/11, exploits the tragedy of 9/11 victims - such as the recent suicide of his friend and colleague Kenny Johannemann - and then wants compensation - makes money! - from the prostitution of his "truth" (lies).

I personally don't like the behavior of Willie. It all starts with the changing story and dishonesty. Putting oneself up on the pedestal, while erasing the stories of the likes of Kenny Johannemann to make himself appear even more heroic. Making his story more dramatic by claiming he was the last survivor pulled from the rubble, which he was not. Claiming even more glory by saying he personally saved hundreds of lives. He may not make a lot of money out of it, but he gets some sort of a status he craves for. I think he wants to be a magnificent hero and a storyteller more than to be rich.

Then there is the avoidance. He knows he has misrepresented the truth, so he has avoided answering any questions regarding his changing story. He has lied about the lawsuit. He has claimed his earlier statements have been a result of misquotes and misrepresentations, but how can you misquote or misrepresent an actual videoclip that shows Willie speaking? He has said "I am 9/11". Is he? It's all about him. Selfish. Glory. Regardless of the truth.

These things are the reason I don't like him and never would like to know him personally.