A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

[Gravy]

A couple of weeks ago I said this would be ready in a day or two. It kept growing, and when it got to be around 120 pages, I thought it would be best to put it online. I've sent the link to William Rodriguez and invited his comments.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

[T.A.M.]

Bookmarked for reading tomorrow.

Thank you

TAM:)

[The Doc]

Bookmarked for reading now :)

Looking forward to it Gravy.

[WildCat]

Just read the first page, pretty damning stuff Mark! No wonder he scurried away from here so fast.

[Slayhamlet]

I can already hear the screams of "hit piece" from the troofer asylum. Expect to see all sorts of nastiness from them over this.

[Mobyseven]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Being a hero on one day of your life doesn't give you free reign to be a profiteering jerkwad the rest of your life.

I've read the first page so far, will get to the rest later. Already there are things I've learnt that I never realised he actually said.

[OMGturt1es]

excellent job gravy. i'm reading it now. i'm going to read it slowly. i'm going to savor this. every time for the next few weeks that i feel a need for entertainment while eating, i suspect i'll have more than enough material at my disposal.

thanks much!

[The Doc]

Very nice paper so far Gravy!

No wonder Willie wouldn't appear on Hardfire.

[PhantomWolf]

While I sure that it'd be nice to shake WR's hand before ripping his claims to bits, I'd rather meet and shake Jay Jonas' hand. Now that guy is a real hero, not just because of 9/11, but because he devoted his life to doing that sort of thing day in and day out.

[Foolmewunz]

I've read the opening and closing and bits of the middle, but I'm at work, and will have to finish it at home, later.

Great work. Nicely organized, great respectful tone to open, yet proper amount of outrage by the time you get to your conclusions.

[ref]

Great paper, Gravy. I just started to read it and it seems to be very interesting and well written. Very informative. I wonder how the "other side" reacts to this, or do they choose to ignore it completely.

[CHF]

Well done Gravy. Very thorough as always.

Have you approached the View? I sure would like to see you take on Rodriguez and the LC boys.

[LashL]

I've been reading for the better part of the past two hours ~ wow. Nicely done, indeed.

[apathoid]

I just got through the first page and many of the links. I can't help but feel a little bit overwhelmed by both Gravy's continued dedication to the (real)truth and by William's deceptions, exaggerations, changing accounts(I'm trying to stay away from the "L" word), poor research, and irresponsible actions and behavior.

A couple of the things that stood out.

- William's conversion to Islam(didn't know dat)
- embellishment of his heroics(again, didn't know that)
- his 180 on the elevator shaft fireball.

I'll eventually get to all of it, but the few pages I did read was enough for now...

As always, great work Binglybert.

[Architect]

It's one of the most impressive pieces of its type that I've seen, to be frank.

[uk_dave]

Don't get too excited, people, the kids over at LCF are already tearing this paper to pieces with their sharp minds and insight.....

P'Doh points out that Gravy is a...
balding tour guide knows far more than rodriguez

(quote deliberately cherry picked for......fun!)

Jackchit cuts to the chase.....

This guy needs to get laid...
can someone send him Ron weeeeks number :ph43r:

ooooooooooooooo that had to hurt

P'Doh again
So an argument from incredulity by a tour guide who wasnt involved with Rodriguez after 911 is supposed to convince us rodriguez is lying.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9574

Well that did it for me. Take down the website Gravy, these guys have all the answers.:rolleyes:

[Architect]

There is an amazing lack of substance in the replies; I have politely suggested that a detailed rebuttal is required of Mr. Rodriguez.

[The Doc]

I'll give it about 24 hours maximum until P'doh signs up here again.

ETA:
Just by reading his posts over at LC, it's pretty obvious he has gone into panic mode. He does the same thing every time a paper is released that criticizes his "movement". You can practically see the sweat rolling down his neck every time a paper or film criticizing the "truth movement" is released.

Why? Well I'll answer that with another question. When was the last time you saw P'doh have a discussion based on anything other than personal attacks? I mean... I hear conspiracists say "WTC7 looked like a CD!" every day, but I've only ever heard personally directed comments from P'doh, in all honesty. His response to my 2 hour 31 minute video and 131 page text critiques of 9/11 Mysteries were "You haven't proven anything Doc". When I asked, "What is the strongest point of their film", I got "You've proven nothing" as a response.

I would love to see a moderated debate between a debunker and P'doh one day...

[Calcas]

Well done Gravy. Very thorough as always.

Have you approached the View? I sure would like to see you take on Rodriguez and the LC boys.

Dylan would probably back out if he knew he had to face Mark (again!) and get his ass handed to him on National television.

I sent the link to Elisabeth, but does anyone have an email address for the producers at The View?

BTW, is the show still slated for this Thursday? Their website says it is but PP has reported it was pushed back.

[The Doc]

This paper presents a very serious problem for the conspiracists. Their 1# "truth" spouting hero has come in the line of fire, and now has a lot to answer for.

[Architect]

I think we should await a more measured response from Mr. Rodriguez and his supporters, rather than rushing to congratulate ourselves at what would appear to be a heavy blow to the man's credibility.

Should such a response not be forthcoming, then one would have to ask why.

[WildCat]

I think we shoudl await a more measured response from Mr. Rodriguez and his supporters, rather than rushing to congratulate ourselves at what would appear to be a heavy blow to the man's credibility.

Should such a response not be forthcoming, then one would have to ask why.
Rodriquez pretty much answered that question by running away from here. My belief is that not only is he full of bull feces, but he knows that we know he's full of bull feces and can prove it.

[Architect]

Perhaps this is so, however if I had such a damning piece written about me then I would not hesitate to identify any substantive errors and issue a rebuttal.

And (as I say) if he fails to do so, we have to ask ourselves why? Surely one wouldnot wish to be branded a self-seeking fantacist on such an important issue?!

[Calcas]

Perhaps this is so, however if I had such a damning piece written about me then I would not hesitate to identify any substantive errors and issue a rebuttal.

And (as I say) if he fails to do so, we have to ask ourselves why? Surely one wouldnot wish to be branded a self-seeking fantacist on such an important issue?!

While I agree with you that we should wait and give William a chance to respond, I would bet you that it won't happen. At least not here. He ran away with egg on his face and I simply don't see him returning anytime soon.

And besides, what would he say? Knowing Gravy and his penchant for facts, I strongly doubt if there are any relevant inaccuracies in the paper. It's pretty damning...

[WildCat]

And (as I say) if he fails to do so, we have to ask ourselves why? Surely one wouldnot wish to be branded a self-seeking fantacist on such an important issue?!
Some people just lack the ability to care about the harm they cause, so long as they get their moment in the spotlight. Psychic healers, people who talk to the dead, homeopaths, psychic detectives, etc etc.

And now William Rodriquez, who now has now entered Kevin Barrett land and cannot bring himself to admit that other members of his "religion of peace" orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

[Architect]

While I agree with you that we should wait and give William a chance to respond, I would bet you that it won't happen. At least not here. He ran away with egg on his face and I simply don't see him returning anytime soon.

And besides, what would he say? Knowing Gravy and his penchant for facts, I strongly doubt if there are any relevant inaccuracies in the paper. It's pretty damning...

In which case, I have pointed out on LCF, it will be cast in his face in order to discredit his testimony henceforth. Under the circumstances it would be very short sighted indeed for the Truth movement and Mr. Rodriguez not to respond.

All will become clear over the coming hours and days, I'm sure.

[uk_dave]

In which case, I have pointed out on LCF....

I see you've discovered Roxdog.

Charming, isn't he? :D

[Architect]

I'm trying not to cast any stones - you know me, measure of politeness other than where racism and the like are involved. Any maybe Danish Dynamite. Anyway, Roxdog has yet to offer anything by way of substantive comment or insight. Is this quite normal.

What, incidentally, would be my "POS buddies"?

[WildCat]

What, incidentally, would be my "POS buddies"?
POS = Piece Of (rule 8 word for feces)

[Calcas]

I see you've discovered Roxdog.

Charming, isn't he? :D


I noticed that too.

I also like how p'duh says, "I will treat you with respect." but then doesn't respond to a SINGLE point in the paper.

He merely says, "As usual, gravys paper is full of his own incredulity, strawman arguments and the usual appeal to emotion and holocaust denial ********."

How's that for rhetoric?

[ref]

Only one minor detail that wasn't in that magnificent paper. The talk is always about William saving Felipe David, alone. But MikeW brought this one up. Kenneth Johannemann describes the exact same scene:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914225325/http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174555-3,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMkyLLlowA8

The elevator door flew open, and a guy stumbled out, and he was badly burned up. It seemed like he was smoldering, almost. He was a delivery guy. The skin from his wrist was hanging down past his fingertips. He was screaming all sorts of things like, "Bombing! Please get me out of here! I'm going to die!" I took him down the hallway right around the corner to my supervisor's office. Me and another janitor grabbed the man and took him outside, one on each arm. There was an EMS truck already outside, and those guys just grabbed him and pushed us aside.

I get the strong feeling, that the janitor Kenneth is talking about is William, and the man they saved together is Felipe David.

[Gravy]

Only one minor detail that wasn't in that magnificent paper. The talk is always about William saving Felipe David, alone. But MikeW brought this one up. Kenneth Johannemann describes the exact same scene:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914225325/http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174555-3,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMkyLLlowA8


I get the strong feeling, that the janitor Kenneth is talking about is William, and the man they saved together is Felipe David.Yes, I'm pretty sure it's the same guy. I have 3 quotes by Johannemann there but hadn't seen that one...the details certainly match: ambulance already outside and all that. There's also this one (in the witnesses/basement section):

B1 level
Ivan Almendarez was a maintenance worker in Building 1 of the World Trade Center. 'I usually work on the concourse, but I was in the basement, charging up my radio and getting some supplies, when the first plane hit,' Ivan said.

'The impact was so great, everything just paused. I looked up and waited for the ceiling to collapse. When I saw the whole building move, and the walls were still standing, I thought the ceiling would collapse on us. So, we all threw ourselves under the tables.

'My supervisor and I helped a worker out. He was so badly burned. It was terrible. He had no skin on his face or his hands,' Ivan said. http://911digitalarchive.org/seiu/details/41 (http://911digitalarchive.org/seiu/details/41)

[chipmunk stew]

Well done Gravy. Very thorough as always.

Have you approached the View? I sure would like to see you take on Rodriguez and the LC boys.
Seconded.

AWESOME expose, Mark.

[Miss Anthrope]

Well, I stayed up much later than I intended last night because of Gravy's paper. Excellent work. I think it was very fair to WR, and truly, the evidence your presented is overwhelming!

[LashL]

Wow. Terrific work, Mark. Simply terrific!









Two minor typos that you may wish to fix when you get a moment.

"This bowing was visible within 18 minutes of of flight ______" on this page:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande

and

"Perhaps they were extinguisheding burning debris" on this page:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/suspiciousactivityonthe34thfloor%3F

[sesshin]

I love how Truthers are so quick to throw out the strawman accusation yet have no clue as to what it means and use it incorrectly.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I love how Truthers are so quick to throw out the strawman accusation yet have no clue as to what it means and use it incorrectly.
And stick their fingers in their ears whenever someone tries to educate them about what it actually is, how it is committed, etc.

[Gravy]

Thanks Lash, fixed the typos.

[Hourglassmemory]

You should get a prize. And I mean an actual physical statue of some sort.
Reading from the feedback, Congratulations!

[Architect]

You should get a prize. And I mean an actual physical statue of some sort.


There are other types of statue? :confused:

[Hourglassmemory]

There are other types of statue? :confused:

I actually couldn't remember the name you give to stuff like the Palme D'or and the Pulizter Medal.
It's a prize right?
I'm portuguese, that's why the sentence seems a little weird.
Sorry.

[MarkyX]

Damn it Gravy, I just put out 9/11 Deniers Speak and you try to one up with this well-researched website? I was *this* close on my way to fame and fortune :mad:

[Free Thinkr]

You should get a prize. And I mean an actual physical statue of some sort.
Reading from the feedback, Congratulations!
Agreed. Maybe we could get one commissioned at ground zero. Then again, with the trouble it took to get anything built at ground zero, perhaps we shouldn't get our hopes up. ;)

[Stankeye]

The link on the bottom of the page "Inside the North Tower: Witness Accounts, Floors 91-60" that supposed to take you to "Floors 59-02" takes you to the first page.

Great paper! I like how it addresses a lot of the known conspiracies all in one paper.

[Gravy]

The link on the bottom of the page "Inside the North Tower: Witness Accounts, Floors 91-60" that supposed to take you to "Floors 59-02" takes you to the first page.

Great paper! I like how it addresses a lot of the known conspiracies all in one paper.Edit: Fixed it. Thanks.

[Gravy]

I heard from William. He says I'm to wait for his action. I hope that action includes reading the document and responding to specifics. I've had a few emails (from others) accusing me of being Snidely Whiplash, but none that addressed any specific claims or evidence.

[pomeroo]

Dylan would probably back out if he knew he had to face Mark (again!) and get his ass handed to him on National television.




He already did just that (well, we're not talking about national television).




I sent the link to Elisabeth, but does anyone have an email address for the producers at The View?

BTW, is the show still slated for this Thursday? Their website says it is but PP has reported it was pushed back.



I've sent e-mails to Elisabeth and Baba Wawa to no avail.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You should get a prize.

I suggest Ed Helms' Palme d'Bitch Slap. :)

Purely figurative, of course.

[boloboffin]

His action?

Get ready to file a countersuit. He won't have a case, of course, but that didn't stop him from filing the previous lawsuit.

[pomeroo]

Mark has dug deeply to unearth the ugly secret of the fantasists' clay-footed hero. The funny thing is, the loons probably think I was aware of the damning details when I invited Willie to appear on 'Hardfire.' As I go through Mark's paper, I am stunned by what I'm reading. As I've said, I began to suspect that Rodriguez might be a phony when I was told about his evasive behavior with NIST. I wanted to let him set the record straight. He was having none of it and his deceptiveness revealed the truth.

[Gravy]

William has replied that he will present his case in national media interviews but not directly with me. I responded,

Dear William,

I appreciate your not wanting to get into a back-and-forth debate, but I hope you know that national media interviews are hardly the best way to reply to the many detailed points in my paper.

I began looking into your claims because it seemed that you were avoiding hard questions. Those questions aren't going away. I hope that as someone who says he's fighting for the truth, you will at least carefully consider the evidence I laid out.

If at any time you feel like writing a response, my offer remains open to print it next to my piece.

Sincerely,
Mark

His email signature says
"William Rodriguez
Last Survivor of the North Tower of the WTC"

I hope that changes.

[AZCat]

William has replied that he will present his case in national media interviews but not directly with me. I responded,



His email signature says
"William Rodriguez
Last Survivor of the North Tower of the WTC"

I hope that changes.

That's a weird way to describe oneself. I would interpret that as the last survivor alive (i.e. last survivor of WWI), which of course is still possible, rather than the last person to escape from the North tower alive (which has been contradicted several times).

[PhantomWolf]

Perhaps he finds "Last person to walk out of the intact North Tower of the WTC" too much of a mouthful?

[AZCat]

Perhaps he finds "Last person to walk out of the intact North Tower of the WTC" too much of a mouthful?

Too bad that's an acceptable criteria over the truth. Then again, I'm not sure about this "mouthful" thing - I'm not so good with the metric system.

[PhantomWolf]

Too bad that's an acceptable criteria over the truth. Then again, I'm not sure about this "mouthful" thing - I'm not so good with the metric system.

I don't know, not all of them use that citeria. Take Alex Jones for instance. He just makes up stuff on the spot because it sounds great and since non of his followers (sheep?) will ever bothering checking anything he says, he can get away with murder of the facts with total immunity (well until someone like Gravy makes him look like the liar he is.)

[beachnut]

A couple of weeks ago I said this would be ready in a day or two. It kept growing, and when it got to be around 120 pages, I thought it would be best to put it online. I've sent the link to William Rodriguez and invited his comments.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/homeOutstanding.

It is amazing how much junk the truth movement brings up! You have over 100 pages of information the truth movement ignores. Proof again, truth is the enemy of the truth movement.

[beachnut]

I heard from William. He says I'm to wait for his action. I hope that action includes reading the document and responding to specifics. I've had a few emails (from others) accusing me of being Snidely Whiplash, but none that addressed any specific claims or evidence.
What about Dudley and Nell?

[AZCat]

I don't know, not all of them use that citeria. Take Alex Jones for instance. He just makes up stuff on the spot because it sounds great and since non of his followers (sheep?) will ever bothering checking anything he says, he can get away with murder of the facts with total immunity (well until someone like Gravy makes him look like the liar he is.)

That's why the importance of confronting the truthers cannot be overstated, because it pulls back the curtain of b.s. and reveals the truthers to be the bald-faced liars that they are.

[Totovader]

William has replied that he will present his case in national media interviews but not directly with me. I responded,



His email signature says
"William Rodriguez
Last Survivor of the North Tower of the WTC"

I hope that changes.

Eh- seems to be more of the same from Mr. Rodriguez.

I'd be willing to bet money that he doesn't even mention any of your findings in his "national media interviews" (read: The View). Instead, he's going to use it as his personal platform to lie about his heroism and take pats on the back from the conspiracists.

[Quad4_72]

Excellent paper Mark. Honestly how could someone respond to such a paper about themselves like that other than coming clean and admitting that you are a liar? I mean everything is right there in black and white. No hiding from it. Very well done Mark. You are a credit to reality.

[LashL]

William has replied that he will present his case in national media interviews but not directly with me.

Oh, he'll "present his case in national media interviews" and not directly with you, all right. He knows that he cannot refute what you've written because it is factual. He also knows that he can do short sound bites in the media and that he won't be questioned about his many inaccuracies by those doing the interviewing, as long as they remain ignorant about his ever-changing story.


His email signature says
"William Rodriguez
Last Survivor of the North Tower of the WTC"

I hope that changes.

It is unlikely that he will change it even though he knows it is a lie. The fact that it is a lie has been pointed out to him before but he continues to use it to promote his own self-interests.

You are quite correct in pointing out that his actions in recent years have been anything but heroic.

[Quad4_72]

Has this paper been posted over at the nursery yet?

[quixotecoyote]

What about Dudley and Nell?

This is probably well beneath the level of discourse, but I couldn't resist.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/doright-1.png

[gumboot]

Thank's for your efforts Gravy. I haven't read the entire thing yet (the counter-accounts, etc) however what I have read honestly just makes me sad. The story of Mr Rodriguez really just makes me feel really quite sad for him.

-Gumboot

[Arus808]

and the ad hom attacks on gravy's paper (and those who promote it ) start. Merc on the myspace forums was quick to put in the predictable jibes (why are you attacking a hero, are you afraid of what he says?; you're jealous because he is going to appear on The View and Mark is only a simple tour guide; Dont worry, the VIew has a larger audience than Marks' website, etc etc)

[Architect]

LCF are very worked up about it, and reckon there's no point in responding to it as Gravy is a nobody, a mere tour guide. I've pointed out that this is a very shortsighted strategy, as the paper rather comprehensively undermines the credibility of an important member of their movement, but they're just shouting at me.

[sigh]

[boloboffin]

Same at DU. One person has taken my "link, quote, and rebuttal" challenge - link to Mark's website, quote a part of it, and rebut that part of it. One single person. They tried to argue against the claim that William had blamed the government for the 9/11 attacks. I directed them to the lawsuits. Then another person jumped in (which was fine) and said those claims were made only for discovery purposes, that the "lawyer" didn't really mean that. I quoted the part of the lawsuit where the plaintiff accuses all of the defendants of foreknowledge, including "the United States." I made the mistake of saying that the President and his entire Cabinet were listed on the lawsuit individually as defendants, but I was corrected on that point. (Hey, Norman Mineta is on the list - I figured if he was there, they all were!)

Almost everyone else has simply refused to go look at it, claiming "the same old thing." One person started a huge flamewar about a completely unrelated topic - I got it cut from the thread. And one person tried to quote gumboot's review from JREF about 9/11 Press for Truth!

Don't worry - they'll figure it out soon enough. I've only gone wrong using Mark's stuff when I've been the stupid one (see above example). Mr. Roberts, you have done us all a great service.

[Architect]

I was going to post a sketch of the structural mechanism on LCF, but couldn't see an easy way of doing it on their engine; if I hit IMG, it needed a web reference and wouldn't apparently be directed to my hard drive instead. But instead of telling me how to do it, one guy just keeps sending messages saying "worked it out yet?" in a sneering tone.

[sigh]

[gumboot]

And one person tried to quote gumboot's review from JREF about 9/11 Press for Truth!


Would that be when I said the Jersey Girls were idiot Truthers who just wanted someone to lynch?

-Gumboot

[boloboffin]

Would that be when I said the Jersey Girls were idiot Truthers who just wanted someone to lynch?

-Gumboot

Yes. To be fair to the truther at DU, Mark does link to that review, but it is way down the list (the truther said the link was up at the top - truthers are always truth-challenged).

And you phrased that a little more sensitively in the review as well. I do disagree with your take on the documentary, though. Of all the CT movies, it's the one I can deal with, because a) it barely flirts with the hooey, and b) I found most of its points fairly well made. I think the Bush Administration can take its fair share of the blame for a lot of the conspiracy theories out there. They certainly do act as if they have plenty to hide, and they most likely do. I know that it's not the planning and execution of 9/11, and I doubt strongly that it's certain or general knowledge of the actual attacks.

But there was a distinct and obstinate disregard by the Bush administration for the lessons learned by the Clinton administration concerning the al-Qaeda threat. We continue to learn about the full court press being made by people in the government to instill some responsible awareness of this general and looming threat, and we can see how they were marginalized and dismissed and stonewalled, right down to Bush telling a CIA briefer trying to follow up that 6 Aug PDB, "Alright, you've covered your [rule8]." When Bush sat in that classroom after Card's message, you'd better believe those words were floating through his mind at some point.

Is this LIHOP? No, this is LIHBTWIFWDGAD - they (the Republicans in Charge™) let it happen because they were incompetent [rule8]s who didn't give a [rule8]. Please note, I am not talking about anyone's actions on the day of, and I'm not even saying that they could have stopped the attacks. But the Clinton Administration might not have stopped the Millennium plot either. Only the chance arrest by a border guard gave them a clue - and by then, the Clintons were looking for clues. The Bushes weren't looking.

The defining character of this administration is that of George Bush - an incuriosity that should be criminal in our Chief Executive, and 9/11 changed that not at all. The only posterior George Bush has ever been interested in covering is his own, and that is what the Jersey Girls, Democrat and Republican alike, were fighting through their grief, and I for one applaud that fight. It's a fight the first citizens of this country picked with their own insufferable George.

The Jersey Girls' woo is their problem. But the overall point of the documentary I saw was that this foot-dragging, rear-covering administration has provided much of the fertilizer for the conspiracy theories that we argue against today. Even if the questions be sometimes stupid, they deserved answers provided in a way that is recognizably just. Their husbands died and they expected their government to protect them. The Bush Administration owed it to them AND to the people who fought their hearts out to stop the attacks on 9/11 to have a free, open, and trustworthy examination of what led to that day.

And, no, it has not happened yet, not publicly. And judging by their conduct of the Iraqi war, not privately either.

Sorry to get political here. Ron, feel free to take me down.

[uk_dave]

Buddy:
The problem is not so much that his story changed in some aspects, but that you guys want to make that the focus. So rather than try explain what Willie experienced you want to discuss why Willie didn't explain his experience the same way everytime. You cut NIST slack and let them do it and it doesn't (apparently) affect their credibility, but it does (apparently) for Willie. And Willie doesn't have proof of explosives beyond what he experienced. He recounts his experience, not provide physical evidence.

So that's it. If that's all you guys got, it's not going to discredit Willie or his experience.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9574&st=100&#last

Fascinating.

An eyewitness is allowed to change his recollection of a single event because an investigation was also able to modify it's interim conclusions based upon the discovery of new evidence during the investigative process.

If an eyewitness to a murder says "the man in red" did it, and then changes this later to "It was the man in blue wot done it" the 'truther' wants to ignore this change in testimony and concentrate solely on the 'man in blue'.

[babazaroni]

I was going to post a sketch of the structural mechanism on LCF, but couldn't see an easy way of doing it on their engine; if I hit IMG, it needed a web reference and wouldn't apparently be directed to my hard drive instead. But instead of telling me how to do it, one guy just keeps sending messages saying "worked it out yet?" in a sneering tone.

[sigh]

Sounds like they won't accept attachments. You could put it up on your VB image storage on JREF. They would love that if it comes up with JREF on the image.

[Stellafane]

There is zero chance that Mr. Rodriguez will ever address Gravy's definitive work, not in any meaningful way (at least not with anyone watching). He knows full well that his career as a professional hero will end the moment Gravy's paper ever becomes well-known, so he's desperately counting on it remaining out of the public eye. Rodriguez is way too smart to go on any popular forum and even so much as whisper Gravy's name. It would call attention to this mountain of damning, irrefutable facts, evaporating Willie's reputation faster than water tossed on fissioning plutonium.

[gumboot]

The Jersey Girls' woo is their problem. But the overall point of the documentary I saw was that this foot-dragging, rear-covering administration has provided much of the fertilizer for the conspiracy theories that we argue against today. Even if the questions be sometimes stupid, they deserved answers provided in a way that is recognizably just. Their husbands died and they expected their government to protect them. The Bush Administration owed it to them AND to the people who fought their hearts out to stop the attacks on 9/11 to have a free, open, and trustworthy examination of what led to that day.

And, no, it has not happened yet, not publicly. And judging by their conduct of the Iraqi war, not privately either.

Sorry to get political here. Ron, feel free to take me down.




I see what you're saying, but I don't agree.

I've read the "unanswered questions" the family members complain about, and almost all of them are total BS. They're either stupid questions of the CTer type, or they're questions that were answered and family members just don't like the answers.

The main push of 9/11 Press For Truth was that the mainstream media has failed to report the facts of what happened on 9/11. Amongst others they present Paul Thompson, whose 9/11 Timeline is solely sourced from mainstream media.

Some Americans simply cannot and will not accept the fact that their government could not stop the 9/11 attacks. You were beaten fair and square by a superior enemy.

The hijackers were not known terrorists. They had not committed any crimes. They were not building bombs.

As for Bush and his lack of desire to look for "clues", I disagree. Bush cannot read every single intelligence report. He has to rely on what he is told. Specialists now claim the system was "blinking red". The August 6 Memo tells a very different story. It presents a very low risk level, nothing new, only historical intentions of terrorists. The gist of the August 6 memo was:

1) Al Qaeda said they wanted to attack us in the USA 3 years ago, and they probably still want to.
2) We've got 50 FBI investigations around the country looking into terrorism.

That says to me there's no imminent threat, everything is fine, don't worry.

Now if the system really was blinking red, the question is why did Bush's security advisors give him a memo saying the complete opposite?

It is not the President's job to find and prevent terrorist attacks. That is the task for those on the front line; the FBI, CIA, customs guards, and so forth. Unless Bush's administration initiated big changes in policy for these agencies relating to counter-terrorism in the 8 months between entering office and 9/11, really there's absolutely nothing that can be blamed on the administration. By January 2001 it was too late. The hijackers had begun to change their behaviour to ensure operational security.

We either lock down our societies, or we take on the terrorists on their own turf. If you let them get in the country, your chances of stopping them drop considerably.

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

We either lock down our societies, or we take on the terrorists on their own turf. If you let them get in the country, your chances of stopping them drop considerably.

But here's the catch. When the first actually illegal thing they do is blow up a building, how do you stop them? While with hindsight we can look at what Atta and the others were doing and realise that they actions were suspicious, at the time they could have been totally legit. Do we ban all Muslims from our countries incase one is a terrorist? Do we prevent them from gathering togther incase they are plotting an attack? Do we have our law enforcement follow them about and keep tabs on them 24/7? Where does the line between our rights being violated by an attack, and their rights being violated by our security get draw? Tough questions, and I'm not sure I know the answers.

[twinstead]

But here's the catch. When the first actually illegal thing they do is blow up a building, how do you stop them? While with hindsight we can look at what Atta and the others were doing and realise that they actions were suspicious, at the time they could have been totally legit. Do we ban all Muslims from our countries incase one is a terrorist? Do we prevent them from gathering togther incase they are plotting an attack? Do we have our law enforcement follow them about and keep tabs on them 24/7? Where does the line between our rights being violated by an attack, and their rights being violated by our security get draw? Tough questions, and I'm not sure I know the answers.

That's why they will always have the advantage

[beachnut]

This is probably well beneath the level of discourse, but I couldn't resist.

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/doright-1.pngWhiplash always had the facts. Nell and Dudley always with the fantasy.

[Architect]

That's why they will always have the advantage

As the IRA always said, MI5 had to get lucky all the time. The IRA only had to be lucky once.

Of course the UK, notably England, have had to live with the spectre of terrorism since the late 60s/early 70s - and with a comparatively small number of serious outrages for what was a determined campaign.

[gumboot]

But here's the catch. When the first actually illegal thing they do is blow up a building, how do you stop them? While with hindsight we can look at what Atta and the others were doing and realise that they actions were suspicious, at the time they could have been totally legit. Do we ban all Muslims from our countries incase one is a terrorist? Do we prevent them from gathering togther incase they are plotting an attack? Do we have our law enforcement follow them about and keep tabs on them 24/7? Where does the line between our rights being violated by an attack, and their rights being violated by our security get draw? Tough questions, and I'm not sure I know the answers.



That's pretty much exactly what I am saying. :) The only way to prevent them at home, is to lock down your own society. That means depriving people or rights, unjustified arrests, ridiculous security precautions, and so forth. The things we don't want.

Of course now the hijackers could have been busted simply for having attended an Al Qaeda training camp, but how can you know they did this, when the Iranian government weren't stamping their passports when they went into Afghanistan?

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

Of course now the hijackers could have been busted simply for having attended an Al Qaeda training camp, but how can you know they did this, when the Iranian government weren't stamping their passports when they went into Afghanistan?

Several of them mysteriously "lost" their passports and applied for new ones after they returned from Afghanistan as well.

[CHF]

Wow. Great work, Mark.

Willy's clearly been taken in by the alure of being a 911 twoof hero and is willing to lie continuously in order to have that fame.

Needless to say, this paper puts an end to that. Absolutely damning.

I doubt Willy will be back here to defend himself.

[PhantomWolf]

now how do we google bomb that paper so that everytime some types "William Rodriguez" or "liar" into Google, this paper pops up.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

now how do we google bomb that paper so that everytime some types "William Rodriguez" or "liar" into Google, this paper pops up.

I think it's easier to bomb phrases rather than words. Wikipedia also has the top spot for "liar", so trying to bomb that word would be futile. :)

I'd suggest dropping in on the Discussion page for the Wikipedia article on Mr. Rodriguez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Rodriguez). Someone pointed out that he had changed his story and another person asked for a source.

Im sorry, but i dont get it. could you be more specific? If he truly did change his story, that would be notable (if sourced, no OR), but i fail to see how he changed his story. Could you give specific references? Thanks --Striver 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The actual article is kind of a mess, though, and there actually isn't much discussion going on, but it's worth a shot...

A search for "william rodriguez liar" puts this thread at #6 in the results...

If you're going to link to the paper, I'd suggest making his name the link text: "A paper by Mark Roberts shows how William Rodriguez (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home) has been lying about blah blah blah..."

-----

Interesting comment I spotted in the Discussion on Wikipedia:

I want to submit a notification about a fact error in the first paragraph of the William Rodriguez article. It says that he alleges government involvement and coverup concerning 9/11. As a reporter who interviewed him and asked him specific questions about his beleifs when he came to my community of Eau Claire, Wis., I can say that is only half true. Mr. Rodriguez specifically told me he doesn't necesarily think the government was involved in the attacks. He does think officials are withholding considerable information, and that they may be complicit in the attacks by failing to take warnings or intelligence seriously. But he specifically said he doesn't think there was a specific government conspiracy related to the attack's cause, even if the government is withholding information and the media is failing to expose that. It's easy to assume that he thinks the government is specifically involved, since he is a part of the truth movement, segments of which do beleive that. Many people around him have said such things, and his words could be taken to mean that. But as of Friday, April 20, he said he doesn't think the government was involved in executing or organizing the attacks. It's an important distinction. I can supply my news article chronicling this if need be.

Brian Reisinger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The "Friday, April 20" he refers to would be of this year...

IP address removed by me for this post.

[chipmunk stew]

As for Bush and his lack of desire to look for "clues", I disagree. Bush cannot read every single intelligence report. He has to rely on what he is told. Specialists now claim the system was "blinking red". The August 6 Memo tells a very different story. It presents a very low risk level, nothing new, only historical intentions of terrorists. The gist of the August 6 memo was:

1) Al Qaeda said they wanted to attack us in the USA 3 years ago, and they probably still want to.
2) We've got 50 FBI investigations around the country looking into terrorism.

That says to me there's no imminent threat, everything is fine, don't worry.

Now if the system really was blinking red, the question is why did Bush's security advisors give him a memo saying the complete opposite?

It is not the President's job to find and prevent terrorist attacks. That is the task for those on the front line; the FBI, CIA, customs guards, and so forth.
http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/anonymous/strip/2007/05/09/it-happens.png

[ref]

They are teaming up :rolleyes:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8833

Following several successful meetings, William Rodriguez and Daniel Sunjata have decided to work together on a series of 9/11-related video projects. Beyond the partnership of Sunjata and Rodriguez, it is still unknown as to who else is involved behind the scenes.

We're told that some of the projects will be focused on challening Rodriguez's detractors.

Another very high-profile celebrity, donated 2 HD cameras for the project and filmaker Jonathan Kerr-Smith donated his talent to film the projects. An effort will be launched later this week to raise the remaining funds needed.

Bolding mine.

[Architect]

I noticed that someone on LCF said that something, presumably sooper-sekrit, was happening in August and which would show us all/Gravy in particular.

[chipmunk stew]

I noticed that someone on LCF said that something, presumably sooper-sekrit, was happening in August and which would show us all/Gravy in particular.
:rolleyes: They're always promising "We'll show you! Just you wait! You'll see!"

Linky?

[Calcas]

Just saw this vid of Rodriguez. Soon after 9-11 he described the "explosion" he heard "below him" as having occured 1-2 seconds before the impact of the plane.

Now, however, during his "world tour", he describes it as 6-7 seconds. The vid is interesting because it gives you a glimpse of what his dog and pony show is like...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ect2ePlvhUI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ect2ePlvhUI

[mjd1982]

Just saw this vid of Rodriguez. Soon after 9-11 he described the "explosion" he heard "below him" as having occured 1-2 seconds before the impact of the plane.

Now, however, during his "world tour", he describes it as 6-7 seconds. The vid is interesting because it gives you a glimpse of what his dog and pony show is like...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ect2ePlvhUI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ect2ePlvhUI
Oooooh.... 1-2 seconds, and now 6-7 seconds??? The lying bastard!!!

[DGM]

Oooooh.... 1-2 seconds, and now 6-7 seconds??? The lying bastard!!!
For once we agree!:D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oooooh.... 1-2 seconds, and now 6-7 seconds??? The lying bastard!!!
You don't consider an increase of 3-7 times the original values to be significant?

[mjd1982]

You don't consider an increase of 3-7 times the original values to be significant?
3-7 times... why not just say 4-6 seconds, oh seeker of truth? is it because you are just too damn honest?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

3-7 times... why not just say 4-6 seconds, oh seeker of truth? is it because you are just too damn honest?
Care to answer the question? Do you, or do you not, find the delta in Rodriguez's story to be of importance?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

3-7 times... why not just say 4-6 seconds, oh seeker of truth? is it because you are just too damn honest?


Six of one, half-dozen of the other...

[jhunter1163]

1-2 seconds could be explained by the difference in the speed of propagation of sound through steel vs. air (sounds travel much, much faster through steel than air). 6-7 seconds obviously would exclude this possibility.

The cynic in me says that Rodriguez heard this possible explanation and adjusted his story accordingly. Apparently, reading through Gravy's work, it wouldn't be the first time his story was adjusted.

[CHF]

Oooooh.... 1-2 seconds, and now 6-7 seconds??? The lying bastard!!!

Forget that. I'm more interested in how the sound of "moving furniture" turned into a massive explosion.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

1-2 seconds could be explained by the difference in the speed of propagation of sound through steel vs. air (sounds travel much, much faster through steel than air). 6-7 seconds obviously would exclude this possibility.

The cynic in me says that Rodriguez heard this possible explanation and adjusted his story accordingly. Apparently, reading through Gravy's work, it wouldn't be the first time his story was adjusted.
The actually calculations of the sound through steel and the sound through air have been done a couple (few?) times on this board alone.

[jhunter1163]

The actually calculations of the sound through steel and the sound through air have been done a couple (few?) times on this board alone.

I know. I was just pointing out that this particular change in Rodriguez' story conveniently excludes a perfectly logical explanation for one of his observations. And, not coincidentally (in my opinion), there have been many such changes and embellishments to his story.

Rodriguez' actions on 9/11 were undeniably heroic; his actions since are undeniably shameful.

[Calcas]

I could care less whether it was 1-2 seconds or 6-7 seconds.

The reason I resurrected the thread is I found it interesting that he has changed his story so much. And, the vid shows his road show.

Gravy's paper gives a great insight as to his possible motives.

The guy was a hero. But, now he just goes around pimping himself.

And that's sad.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I know. I was just pointing out that this particular change in Rodriguez' story conveniently excludes a perfectly logical explanation for one of his observations. And, not coincidentally (in my opinion), there have been many such changes and embellishments to his story.

Rodriguez' actions on 9/11 were undeniably heroic; his actions since are undeniably shameful.
It is perfectly reasonable to confront Rodriguez about the disparity in his accounts, but I'd rather refrain from speculating as to why there are disparities. That said, I do understand why you have the opinion you do on the matter.

[bje]

I could care less whether it was 1-2 seconds or 6-7 seconds.


Anything is possible in "Alice in 9/11 Wonderland."

[mjd1982]

I know. I was just pointing out that this particular change in Rodriguez' story conveniently excludes a perfectly logical explanation for one of his observations. And, not coincidentally (in my opinion), there have been many such changes and embellishments to his story.

Rodriguez' actions on 9/11 were undeniably heroic; his actions since are undeniably shameful.
How about those of Jose Sanchez and Salvatore Giambanco? Would they be included too? Felipe David as well?

[mjd1982]

Care to answer the question? Do you, or do you not, find the delta in Rodriguez's story to be of importance?
No. If I asked you for how long you brushed your teeth this morning, and then asked you again in a week, there would probably also be a disparity. These things happen. When people seize on such trivialiites to try and discredit the witness, it is indicactive of desperation, nothing else. We have seen this in the WTC7 thread, and it is pretty tragic.

I'm just glad your ilk constitute the minority in the US.

[jhunter1163]

How about those of Jose Sanchez and Salvatore Giambanco? Would they be included too? Felipe David as well?

Are any of them lying and embellishing their stories to make money and enhance their place in the Truth movement? If so, then yes, their actions are shameful.

[RedIbis]

Instead of riding the Gravy train and letting someone else tell you what Rodriguez experienced that day, the man will speak for himself today on CSPAN,

"SAT., SEPT. 8 AT 8PM ET

ON AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

9/11 and Oklahoma City Terrorist Attacks
This Saturday watch a speech by William Rodriguez, the janitor at the World Trade Center who rescued others on September 11. He is critical of the 9/11 Commission's report and shares his reasons for being skeptical."

Incidentally, the repeat of Giuliani's OKC talk is interesting because Giuliani claims that WTC 7 collapsed over the course of a long period of time. Well, we can all agree that's a total lie.

[Civilized Worm]

Instead of riding the Gravy train and letting someone else tell you what Rodriguez experienced that day, the man will speak for himself today on CSPAN


Have you read Gravy's paper? He lets Rodriguez speak for himself, he just compares them to other things he said.

[maccy]

Have you read Gravy's paper? He lets Rodriguez speak for himself, he just compares them to other things he said.

He has also offered to include any response from Mr Rodriguez in his paper and to speak with him on Hardfire.

Mr Rodriguez has so far declined both these offers.

Furthermore, Mr Rodriguez is a member here and so could very easily speak for himself if he wanted to. In fact, I am not aware of Mr Rodriguez responding to Gravy's paper anywhere.

[Alferd_Packer]

Forget that. I'm more interested in how the sound of "moving furniture" turned into a massive explosion.


Neil Bush's credenza?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No. If I asked you for how long you brushed your teeth this morning, and then asked you again in a week, there would probably also be a disparity. These things happen. When people seize on such trivialiites to try and discredit the witness, it is indicactive of desperation, nothing else. We have seen this in the WTC7 thread, and it is pretty tragic.

I'm just glad your ilk constitute the minority in the US.
It is not a trivial detail. The 1-2 second time originally mentioned has been shown to have alternative potential explanations to that of Rodriguez's bomb claim; the 6-7 second time now being said precludes those possible alternative explanations.

The times in his story are used to correlate his description of events with those of others and with other available data.

Your analogy is a false, and misleading one. A more correct analogy, that is consistent with the relevance of the details of the account would be:
There is an intersection where an automobile accident has occurred. Police are attempting to determine which driver ran the red light and caused the crash; as both deny doing so. At the intersection is a bank, with a clock/temp sign out front. The police determine that the sign is in synch with the light change. A witness to the crash states that the bank sign said 8:48 when the crash occurred, putting driver A at fault. Later, in a civil suite, the witness (while on the stand) claims the sign said 8:49; putting driver B at fault.


Your claim that addressing such discrepancies is a sign of desperation is erroneous as you are making assumptions about the importance of the details in question.

Whether or not those you disagree with, in this thread, represent a minority or majority of the views of individuals in the US is moot; your insistence on pointing it our is a fallacious argument to numbers.

[mjd1982]

Are any of them lying and embellishing their stories to make money and enhance their place in the Truth movement? If so, then yes, their actions are shameful.
Whats your evidence that he is making money from his activities?

Tread carefully now, you guys dont want another libel suit...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . . Tread carefully now, you guys dont want another libel suit...
Another? What was the first one?

[maccy]

Whats your evidence that he is making money from his activities?

Tread carefully now, you guys dont want another libel suit...

How do you imagine William Rodriguez is currently supporting himself?

[jhunter1163]

Well, let's look at this logically. Mr. Rodriguez is a janitor by trade; while this is an absolutely essential position in society, the sad fact is that it doesn't pay well. However, Mr. Rodriguez somehow manages to travel to England, Malaysia, and points in between to present his lectures. I think we can conclude that he's not making these trips on his janitor's salary. Further, it appears that he is no longer working as a janitor; it's unlikely that any employer would grant him a month off from work to go and tour Europe.

I'm not privy to Mr. Rodriguez' personal finances, but someone is financing his junkets to Europe and so on. I don't know if he got any 9/11 victims' assistance, or if he has a rich wife, or what other sources of income he might have. Perhaps someone should ask him what (or if) he charges for an appearance. That would go a long way towards clearing this up.

If I have falsely accused him of profiting from 9/11, I stand ready to apologize. But I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth, as it were.

[Civilized Worm]

Whats your evidence that he is making money from his activities?

Tread carefully now, you guys dont want another libel suit...


You mean SLANDER.


Doesn't he, 3bodyproblem?

[mjd1982]

Another? What was the first one?
what's that pricks name... troy! troy from wv

[mjd1982]

How do you imagine William Rodriguez is currently supporting himself?
From sales of his dvd. He lost his job at the WTC, didnt you know?

Your implication is that he is cashing in on 9/11, i.e. making more money than he woud as a janitor. Show me how this is the case.

[mjd1982]

Well, let's look at this logically. Mr. Rodriguez is a janitor by trade; while this is an absolutely essential position in society, the sad fact is that it doesn't pay well. However, Mr. Rodriguez somehow manages to travel to England, Malaysia, and points in between to present his lectures. I think we can conclude that he's not making these trips on his janitor's salary. Further, it appears that he is no longer working as a janitor; it's unlikely that any employer would grant him a month off from work to go and tour Europe.

I'm not privy to Mr. Rodriguez' personal finances, but someone is financing his junkets to Europe and so on. I don't know if he got any 9/11 victims' assistance, or if he has a rich wife, or what other sources of income he might have. Perhaps someone should ask him what (or if) he charges for an appearance. That would go a long way towards clearing this up.

If I have falsely accused him of profiting from 9/11, I stand ready to apologize. But I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth, as it were.
He charges nothing for his appearances. I am part of the London group- he stays at houses of members, and gets taken from place to place by them too.

Apology?

[maccy]

From sales of his dvd. He lost his job at the WTC, didnt you know?

Your implication is that he is cashing in on 9/11, i.e. making more money than he woud as a janitor. Show me how this is the case.

He is making money on the basis of a lie, how much is irrelevant.

He is, rightly, entitled to compensation from the government.

[Civilized Worm]

what's that pricks name... troy! troy from wv


You mean Troy who was long banned from here before whatever court action Rodriguez took against him?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

what's that pricks name... troy! troy from wv


Uhh... Troy made that up.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=%20screwloosechange%20&comment=9202265377869053586

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1883.html

So you made up all that stuff about him "ruining your life"? How is it again that you're better than the twoofers?
I thought it was so ridiculous that it wouldn't be taken seriously. Sued? Life ruined? For what again?

[Civilized Worm]

I think it's more likely that Troy is lying now.

[Jonnyclueless]

How does mark do it? These papers he makes (is papers the right term?) that list out so many quotes and what not are amazing. They're like compendiums of testimonies.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think it's more likely that Troy is lying now.


Lying about making it up? I suppose it's a definite possibility with him.

[Civilized Worm]

I can't see any reason why Troy would pretend that a twoofer ruined his life, but it would make sense for him to deny such a thing.

[mjd1982]

He is making money on the basis of a lie, how much is irrelevant.

He is, rightly, entitled to compensation from the government.
It is relvant, since you were implying that he was making a profit from 911. I..e a profit over and above of what he was making before. Show that this is true.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It is relvant, since you were implying that he was making a profit from 911. I..e a profit over and above of what he was making before. Show that this is true.


Are you redefining the word "profit" now? Come on, mjd...

[LashL]

what's that pricks name... troy! troy from wv

Do you have any actual evidence that Rodriguez brought a libel suit against anyone? If so, please present it, preferably with a link to the documents filed in the court. Alternatively, please provide information about which court this alleged lawsuit was brought in, the approximate time frame in which it was filed, a docket number, or similar information.

[jhunter1163]

He charges nothing for his appearances. I am part of the London group- he stays at houses of members, and gets taken from place to place by them too.

Apology?

Just one more question; who is paying for his airfare to London, Malaysia, etc.? If he is paying for his own airfare, and not taking money for his lectures, and is relying on the kindness of truth groups for local transportation and room and board, then an apology for my earlier comment is warranted. Can you confirm this?

[mjd1982]

Just one more question; who is paying for his airfare to London, Malaysia, etc.? If he is paying for his own airfare, and not taking money for his lectures, and is relying on the kindness of truth groups for local transportation and room and board, then an apology for my earlier comment is warranted. Can you confirm this?
I dont know about his flights, either way I'm afraid.

[jhunter1163]

Well, OK then. I will extend Mr. Rodriguez a qualified apology; if he is in fact paying his own way to these Truth events, and not charging speaking fees or expenses, and relying on the kindness of the local truth community for transportation, room and board, then my earlier statement that he is profiting from 9/11 is wrong and I apologize for it.

Let's shake hands and move on then.

[Jonnyclueless]

To be fair, I don't think him not having to pay for his flights is profiting.

[LashL]

what's that pricks name... troy! troy from wv
Do you have any actual evidence that Rodriguez brought a libel suit against anyone? If so, please present it, preferably with a link to the documents filed in the court. Alternatively, please provide information about which court this alleged lawsuit was brought in, the approximate time frame in which it was filed, a docket number, or similar information.

Well, mjd?

[RedIbis]

Here, on the east coast of the US, CSPAN has Rodriguez's speech from LA on 8/17.

You guys might find it funny that he began his presentation by explaining that he calls his recent European speaking tour, "The Gravy Tour," because, as he says, some guy on the internet has been attacking him and he sent the attacks to all of his contacts overseas and that's how he was invited to so many countries.

I got a good laugh out of that.

[Slayhamlet]

Well, he lists NYCTOURS@gmail.com as a contact.

He insinuates that he is a tour guide for NYC tours.

So how does he know that "two requests" he got is from a truther?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM????????????? ???????????????????????

:dl:

Quoting so Gravy can read this. Too funny!

[CptColumbo]

Here, on the east coast of the US, CSPAN has Rodriguez's speech from LA on 8/17.

You guys might find it funny that he began his presentation by explaining that he calls his recent European speaking tour, "The Gravy Tour," because, as he says, some guy on the internet has been attacking him and he sent the attacks to all of his contacts overseas and that's how he was invited to so many countries.

I got a good laugh out of that.Now if AC/DC would call their next tour the "Gravy Tour" that would be cool.

[Civilized Worm]

Do you have any actual evidence that Rodriguez brought a libel suit against anyone? If so, please present it, preferably with a link to the documents filed in the court. Alternatively, please provide information about which court this alleged lawsuit was brought in, the approximate time frame in which it was filed, a docket number, or similar information.


Do you have any evidence MJD? I hope you do as I'd really like to shove it in Troy's face.


Was that the first ever on line orgasm? :eek:


No, not by a loooooooong shot. Welcome to the internet.

[Slayhamlet]

Here, on the east coast of the US, CSPAN has Rodriguez's speech from LA on 8/17.

You guys might find it funny that he began his presentation by explaining that he calls his recent European speaking tour, "The Gravy Tour," because, as he says, some guy on the internet has been attacking him and he sent the attacks to all of his contacts overseas and that's how he was invited to so many countries.

I got a good laugh out of that.

Sounds like another whopper. But at least it amused a few CTs, since that's what it's really all about.

[Civilized Worm]

Here, on the east coast of the US, CSPAN has Rodriguez's speech from LA on 8/17.

You guys might find it funny that he began his presentation by explaining that he calls his recent European speaking tour, "The Gravy Tour," because, as he says, some guy on the internet has been attacking him and he sent the attacks to all of his contacts overseas and that's how he was invited to so many countries.

I got a good laugh out of that.


I'm sure we'll all get a good laugh out of his attempts to explain why he changed his story.

[RedIbis]

I'm sure we'll all get a good laugh out of his attempts to explain why he changed his story.

Really? He's quite clear that the explosion that occurs in B2 is seven seconds before the plane impacts the bldg.

[Par]

Really? He's quite clear that the explosion that occurs in B2 is seven seconds before the plane impacts the bldg.


Well, being quite clear about one’s current story and having changed that story are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

[Civilized Worm]

Really? He's quite clear that the explosion that occurs in B2 is seven seconds before the plane impacts the bldg.


So you didn't bothered reading Mark's paper? Why did he tell NIST that it was a fireball and not a bomb?

[Gravy]

NWO Tours
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046e362535e971.jpg

[Jonnyclueless]

Speaking of which, I will be in NYC the first week of Oct. and was thinking of visiting ground zero since I haven't been there since the week of 9/11. Are you there much Mark, cause if you are it would be nice to shake your hand and thank you for everything you have done. :-)

[A W Smith]

Speaking of which, I will be in NYC the first week of Oct. and was thinking of visiting ground zero since I haven't been there since the week of 9/11. Are you there much Mark, cause if you are it would be nice to shake your hand and thank you for everything you have done. :-)


since i don't drink instead of buying him a beer maybe ill go on a tour and just leave a large tip? I took a tour about 8 years ago on one of them sawed off double decker buses.

[DazedAndCofuesed]

Gravy, you did a very exceptional job on putting it together. Thank you so much for what you do!

[DGM]

Really? He's quite clear that the explosion that occurs in B2 is seven seconds before the plane impacts the bldg.
How does he know the exact moment the plane hit when he was in the basement? I've often wondered this.

[~enigma~]

Here, on the east coast of the US, CSPAN has Rodriguez's speech from LA on 8/17.

You guys might find it funny that he began his presentation by explaining that he calls his recent European speaking tour, "The Gravy Tour," because, as he says, some guy on the internet has been attacking him and he sent the attacks to all of his contacts overseas and that's how he was invited to so many countries.

I got a good laugh out of that.
Judging from his feigned anger with a few here saying splosion I am utterly disgusted by him having the nerve to say such a thing. Maybe the splosion happened in his head?

[RedIbis]

How does he know the exact moment the plane hit when he was in the basement? I've often wondered this.

From his discussion broadcast last night he said that he felt the impact shake the building and he could hear it as coming from much higher up the building.

As opposed to the explosion he heard and felt below him several seconds earlier.

[~enigma~]

From his discussion broadcast last night he said that he felt the impact shake the building and he could hear it as coming from much higher up the building.

As opposed to the explosion he heard and felt below him several seconds earlier.
Why did he change the timing from 1-2 seconds to 6-7 seconds? Doesn't a change that great signify he is full of [rule10]?

[DGM]

From his discussion broadcast last night he said that he felt the impact shake the building and he could hear it as coming from much higher up the building.

As opposed to the explosion he heard and felt below him several seconds earlier.
So any time line he may arrive at is subject to any number of variable considering he didn't actually see it which would be real time.
Basically his story sounds better if it was before. He truthfully has no real way of knowing.

[RedIbis]

Why did he change the timeing from 1-2 seconds to 6-7 seconds? Doesn't a change that great signify he is full of [rule10]?

This is laughable. First of all, the difference in time is hardly "great." Especially if we consider the events of the moment.

Secondly, by your logic the rather significant changes in time that NORAD and the Commission Report have produced would render their accounts absolutely worthless.

[~enigma~]

This is laughable. First of all, the difference in time is hardly "great." Especially if we consider the events of the moment.

Secondly, by your logic the rather significant changes in time that NORAD and the Commission Report have produced would render their accounts absolutely worthless.
1-2 sec being increased to 6-7 isn't a great change? Edited for civilityNORAD and the 9/11 comission are not the same peron like your lying janitor is.

[RedIbis]

So any time line he may arrive at is subject to any number of variable considering he didn't actually see it which would be real time.
Basically his story sounds better if it was before. He truthfully has no real way of knowing.

The bottom line is not the interval of time as much as whether or not he felt an explosion below him before the impact of the plane.

I believe you guys follow the thesis that the explosions he reported were a result of a fireball generated by jet fuel.

Whereas, Rodriguez reported a fire ball, did he say it was from jet fuel? Any possibility the fire ball Rodriquez reported could have been from something else?

[DGM]

The bottom line is not the interval of time as much as whether or not he felt an explosion below him before the impact of the plane.

I believe you guys follow the thesis that the explosions he reported were a result of a fireball generated by jet fuel.

Whereas, Rodriguez reported a fire ball, did he say it was from jet fuel? Any possibility the fire ball Rodriquez reported could have been from something else?

He still can't justify his time line.
When combined with the reports of kerosene like smell and burns not really. Unless you want to go with something like a crude fuel/air bomb or incendiary but want good would that be..
As far as any possibility it's a stretch at best.

[RedIbis]

As far as any possibility it's a stretch at best.


But the idea that enough jet fuel survived the impact, and then was propelled hundreds of feet down an elevator shaft that lacks oxygen and is not exactly a hollow tube, remaining ignited and exploding in the basement and the lobby is not a stretch?

I'm not questioning Rodriquez reporting a fireball, I'm asking for the evidence that proves it was fuel from the plane.

[~enigma~]

that lacks oxygen and is not exactly a hollow tube.
Your not gonna bring out that old debunked "hermetically sealed" [rule10], are you?

[DGM]

But the idea that enough jet fuel survived the impact, and then was propelled hundreds of feet down an elevator shaft that lacks oxygen and is not exactly a hollow tube, remaining ignited and exploding in the basement and the lobby is not a stretch?

I'm not questioning Rodriquez reporting a fireball, I'm asking for the evidence that proves it was fuel from the plane.
Not at all. The fuel has to vaporize before it burned so there would be plenty left from the initial fireball. The elevator core has plenty of air. The explosion would be when the fuel hits the bottom of the shaft. Not all that complicated.
What purpose would a incendiary bomb be any way? It would have to be because the blast burned but did not maim anyone. If you were close enough to burn you the blast wave would cause you much more harm.

[Jonnyclueless]

Thank you RedIbis for pointing out the very reason the elevator doors at the lower levels blew out. There's hope yet. :-)

BTW, remember when the same exact thing happened at the Empire state building?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You haven't addressed this, RedIbis...

I'm sure we'll all get a good laugh out of his attempts to explain why he changed his story.
Really? He's quite clear that the explosion that occurs in B2 is seven seconds before the plane impacts the bldg.
Well, being quite clear about one’s current story and having changed that story are not mutually exclusive possibilities.


Is it your belief that Mr. Rodriguez has not changed his story since first telling it?

[chillzero]

Stay on topic, do not attack the individuals - tackle the arguments instead. Stay civil.

[MikeW]

I believe you guys follow the thesis that the explosions he reported were a result of a fireball generated by jet fuel.

Whereas, Rodriguez reported a fire ball, did he say it was from jet fuel?

Yes. Rodriguez in 2002:

And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance. And I came back running into the building.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html

Seems quite clear to me. I wonder why he's changed his story now?

[Mr. Skinny]

Not at all. The fuel has to vaporize before it burned so there would be plenty left from the initial fireball. The elevator core has plenty of air. The explosion would be when the fuel hits the bottom of the shaft. Not all that complicated.
What purpose would a incendiary bomb be any way? It would have to be because the blast burned but did not maim anyone. If you were close enough to burn you the blast wave would cause you much more harm.
Why do you say that (bolded portion), DGM.

Seems the explosion could take place at any time in the elevator shaft when fuel and air in the right ratio are present. Combine with an ignition source and "boom".

[DGM]

Why do you say that (bolded portion), DGM.

Seems the explosion could take place at any time in the elevator shaft when fuel and air in the right ratio are present. Combine with an ignition source and "boom".
I'm thinking more of the impact of the fuel on the bottom of the shaft. The fuel will pickup considerable speed in the fall (momentum). Like a water balloon dropped off a building, large splash.

[RedIbis]

Yes. Rodriguez in 2002:



Seems quite clear to me. I wonder why he's changed his story now?

Where in your quote does Rodriguez say that the ball of fire was from jet fuel?

[Par]

Where in your quote does Rodriguez say that the ball of fire was from jet fuel?


I think what he means is that the original testimony is compatible with a jet-fuel explosion yet incompatible with an ordnance explosion.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yes. Rodriguez in 2002:

And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance. And I came back running into the building. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html

Seems quite clear to me. I wonder why he's changed his story now?

Where in your quote does Rodriguez say that the ball of fire was from jet fuel?


He says "the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself". It certainly couldn't have been from any explosion he heard coming from below.

[Gravy]

It's a shame, but hardly surprising, that RedIbis refuses to read the paper that is the topic of this thread. He's asking questions that are answered on the first page of that paper. There he will find the September, 2002 quote that MikeW cited above, as well as this 2004 Rodriguez statement to NIST:
"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." Read his entire statement here. (http://911stories.googlepages.com/rodriguezstatementtonist)[/URL]On the first page he could also have read this statement of Arturo Griffith, who was in the elevator described above.
"Arturo Griffith was in a freight elevator when the building was attacked. The elevator dropped to B1 (the basement level), fell below the landing. He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him. 'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.' " [URL="http://911digitalarchive.org/seiu/details/54"]Source (http://911stories.googlepages.com/rodriguezstatementtonist)I don't know why people like RedIbis, who claim to be on to some vast, evil criminal plot, can't be bothered to read a single page of a document. If I thought my government committed the 9/11 attacks, I'd damn sure try to find out about it.

[maccy]

I think Gravy has covered all this really well, but I also think there are some simple questions about Rodriguez's testimony.

How does it make sense? Why would anybody explode bombs in the basement of the towers? How would exploding them just before the plane hit contribute to a collapse that started from the impact zones and progressed down the building, 1 hour and 42 minutes later?

Gravy has shown in great detail how Rodriguez's story has changed, how he couldn't have known for sure what was happening and how his experience is best explained by fireballs in the elevator shafts.

Even if you could somehow dismiss all this meticulous work, the idea of blowing up the basements in advance makes no sense at all.

[RedIbis]

It's a shame, but hardly surprising, that RedIbis refuses to read the paper that is the topic of this thread. He's asking questions that are answered on the first page of that paper. There he will find the September, 2002 quote that MikeW cited above, as well as this 2004 Rodriguez statement to NIST:
[/URL]On the first page he could also have read this statement of Arturo Griffith, who was in the elevator described above.
[URL="http://911digitalarchive.org/seiu/details/54"] (http://911stories.googlepages.com/rodriguezstatementtonist)I don't know why people like RedIbis, who claim to be on to some vast, evil criminal plot, can't be bothered to read a single page of a document. If I thought my government committed the 9/11 attacks, I'd damn sure try to find out about it.

Technically, if you're addressing my posts, you're not really ignoring me.

I have stated consistently that I don't doubt Rodriguez reported a fire ball, I question whether he said it was from jet fuel. There are other possibilities.

Also, I reported Rodriguez's statement that he felt the explosion below him before the impact of the plane.

[Par]

I have stated consistently that I don't doubt Rodriguez reported a fire ball, I question whether he said it was from jet fuel. There are other possibilities.



Well, as I pointed out earlier, the original testimony is compatible with a jet-fuel explosion yet incompatible with an ordnance explosion. (There may well be other possibilities besides, but I don’t know which kind of non-jet-fuel and non-ordnance explosions you have in mind.)

[Gravy]

Rodriguez told me that he smelled kerosene just after the basement fireball blast. That's also in my paper. Ask him.

High explosives do not create kerosene fireballs that cause flash burns.

[Civilized Worm]

Just read the damn paper already.

[Mobyseven]

Where in your quote does Rodriguez say that the ball of fire was from jet fuel?

...because when I see a great sodding big ball of fire coming towards me, the first thing I think about is, "I wonder if a plane has unexpectedly hit the building a work in, sending a mass of jet fuel down the elevator shaft to ignite and turn into this ball of fire..."

Honestly, how would he know what caused the fire in the moment?

[PhantomWolf]

You don't consider an increase of 3-7 times the original values to be significant?

Well since they don't consider halfing the collapse times as being significant, why would increasing the time between the booms be?

[DGM]

RedIbis:
Also, I reported Rodriguez's statement that he felt the explosion below him before the impact of the plane.

This can easily be explained by the reverberation in the steel. An impact like the plane is bound to sent all through the steel and bounce around (like echo). I have no doubts he could have heard impact sounds that sounded like they were below him.

[PhantomWolf]

This can easily be explained by the reverberation in the steel. An impact like the plane is bound to sent all through the steel and bounce around (like echo). I have no doubts he could have heard impact sounds that sounded like they were below him.

Actually I'd suggest that he never heard the plane, he just thinks he did. He heard an explosion from above and assumed that since it was above him, it was the plane. We know that others higher up in the tower didn't hear the plane at all, and we know that there were multiple explosions between the plane and the Sub-basement. I suspect that the second explosion that he heard was the fireball in the lobby while the first was that which took out the subbasement levels below him.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This can easily be explained by the reverberation in the steel. An impact like the plane is bound to sent all through the steel and bounce around (like echo). I have no doubts he could have heard impact sounds that sounded like they were below him.


This is highly likely, considering the actual impacts were picked up on LDEO seismographs.

[A W Smith]

i remember hearing an audio of the hit from somewhere deep inside the tower. it was not very loud. it was two events which sounded like a bat hitting steel twice. the second sound a bit louder. anybody remember a link?

[funk de fino]

He charges nothing for his appearances. I am part of the London group- he stays at houses of members, and gets taken from place to place by them too.

Apology?

Apparently only cause he was denied lodgings in a couple of hotels in england? Are you deliberately misleading here?

[Hellbound]

Just to second what Par is saying, if he saw a fireball then it wasn't a steel-cutting explosive. Might have been a variant of a cratering charge, but that brings in another problem. A fireball like you see in movie explosions is mostly gasoline, and would not have been effective in initiating a collapse.

If a conventional explsoive, as those used for sutting steel and metal, there would not have been a fireball such as that. A blast wave, yes. Dust cloud and shrapnel, sure. Little heat and flame, however, at least away from the immediate area of the detonation.

A cratering charge is a slower-moving explosive, and they'll produce a bit more of a fireball usually. However, they don't do very well at cutting through steel or other hard surfaces, so they wouldn't be effective. You'd need a heck of a lot more of them to do significant damage, which would have been noticeable by a lot more people than a single janitor in the basement.

And a gasoline fire, of course, would have been a fart in the wind.

There's another side to this, as well. Almost everyone in the building felt/heard the plane impact, from the top to the bottem of the building. Yet, the troothers say this is not enough damage to collapse the building. However, apparently so little energy was released formt he explosives that the only on who had any idea they were there was a janitor in the basement, indicating that they were several orders of magnitude less powerful than the jet impact. Yet, somehow, this does initiate a collapse.

It's these contradictory applications of logic that bring ridicule, not the idea of CT itself. IF there were credible evidence, it might be different. As it is, the entiore CT argument is speculation based on argument from ignorance, circular reasoning, and similar fallacies.

[MaGZ]

Instead of riding the Gravy train and letting someone else tell you what Rodriguez experienced that day, the man will speak for himself today on CSPAN,

"SAT., SEPT. 8 AT 8PM ET

ON AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

9/11 and Oklahoma City Terrorist Attacks
This Saturday watch a speech by William Rodriguez, the janitor at the World Trade Center who rescued others on September 11. He is critical of the 9/11 Commission's report and shares his reasons for being skeptical."

Incidentally, the repeat of Giuliani's OKC talk is interesting because Giuliani claims that WTC 7 collapsed over the course of a long period of time. Well, we can all agree that's a total lie.

Gravy’s next paper should be on Giuliani and 9/11. Which is the biggest liar? Rodriguez and the Truthers will never be president, Giuliani might.

[MaGZ]

Well, let's look at this logically. Mr. Rodriguez is a janitor by trade; while this is an absolutely essential position in society, the sad fact is that it doesn't pay well. However, Mr. Rodriguez somehow manages to travel to England, Malaysia, and points in between to present his lectures. I think we can conclude that he's not making these trips on his janitor's salary. Further, it appears that he is no longer working as a janitor; it's unlikely that any employer would grant him a month off from work to go and tour Europe.

I'm not privy to Mr. Rodriguez' personal finances, but someone is financing his junkets to Europe and so on. I don't know if he got any 9/11 victims' assistance, or if he has a rich wife, or what other sources of income he might have. Perhaps someone should ask him what (or if) he charges for an appearance. That would go a long way towards clearing this up.

If I have falsely accused him of profiting from 9/11, I stand ready to apologize. But I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Hasn't Rudy Giuliani profited from 9/11?

[Burrell]

How do you define Profit?

In your opinion, what are the keys areas that he has gained?

My concern is that, if you use a very wide definition covering areas such as acquired knowledge and media exposure, then the truth movement and even those of us with differing views to the conspiracy theorists could also be seen to 'profit' from the tragic events of the 11th of September 2001.

[MaGZ]

How do you define Profit?

In your opinion, what are the keys areas that he has gained?

My concern is that, if you use a very wide definition, then the truth movement can also be seen to 'profit' from the tragic events of the 11th of September 2001.

Let’s move this discussion to the new thread I recently created.

[Burrell]

This thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93399

(I was half way fixing the last two paragraphs when you posted the reply).

[RedIbis]

Gravy’s next paper should be on Giuliani and 9/11. Which is the biggest liar? Rodriguez and the Truthers will never be president, Giuliani might.


I actually just made a very similar comment that there is a tremendous amount of energy spent on proving the "truthers" are "denialists" and liars, whereas, there is no criticism focused on the very people who were most in a position to prevent this horrible crime.

I wouldn't be holding my breath on any critical analyses on Giuliani, Myers, Bush or anyone else in the gov't.

[Par]

I actually just made a very similar comment that there is a tremendous amount of energy spent on proving the "truthers" are "denialists" and liars, whereas, there is no criticism focused on the very people who were most in a position to prevent this horrible crime. I wouldn't be holding my breath on any critical analyses on Giuliani, Myers, Bush or anyone else in the gov't.


This seems to be a fairly common fallacy. The suggestion is that it is somehow wrong or improper to highlight the lies and deception of one person while other more prominent lies and deceptions may exist.

Even if it the sentiment itself were accurate, it is, at its core, simply an attempt to change the subject. You would rather turn the focus of the discussion away from the dishonesty of a member of the “Truth Movement” and towards the supposed misplaced priorities of members of the debunking community.

Incidentally, it might be worth bearing in mind that if certain members of the “Truth Movement” would stop being dishonest, then others would have more time available to heap criticism upon those who you hold to be more deserving of it.

[jhunter1163]

Incidentally, it might be worth bearing in mind that if certain members of the “Truth Movement” would stop being dishonest, then others would have more time available to heap criticism upon those who you hold to be more deserving of it.

If the Truthers stopped being intellectually dishonest, the Truth Movement would disappear like the abovementioned fart in the wind.

[RedIbis]

Incidentally, it might be worth bearing in mind that if certain members of the “Truth Movement” would stop being dishonest, then others would have more time available to heap criticism upon those who you hold to be more deserving of it.

You might consider prioritizing and not let those movements you deem invalid to distract you from investigating the obvious contradictions and deceptions in the official story.

[JamesB]

Just to second what Par is saying, if he saw a fireball then it wasn't a steel-cutting explosive. Might have been a variant of a cratering charge, but that brings in another problem. A fireball like you see in movie explosions is mostly gasoline, and would not have been effective in initiating a collapse.




That is one thing I was disappointed in when I joined the army. I was used to 50 foot fireballs in the air on TV. When I first saw grenades going off, I thought "That was it!" :jaw-dropp

[Par]

You might consider prioritizing and not let those movements you deem invalid to distract you from investigating the obvious contradictions and deceptions in the official story.


Well, unfortunately you’ve now committed the begging the question fallacy. Whether or not the “official” account of 9/11 is significantly inaccurate is precisely the question at issue.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by RedIbis http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2965944#post2965944)
You might consider prioritizing and not let those movements you deem invalid to distract you from investigating the obvious contradictions and deceptions in the official story.
Geez, I could swear that I repeatedly asked RedIbis to name something significant that the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong, and he said he could not. Huh. I must be thinking of someone else.


A reminder: this thread is about William Rodriguez.

[RedIbis]

Well, unfortunately you’ve now committed the begging the question fallacy. Whether or not the “official” account of 9/11 is significantly inaccurate is precisely the question at issue.


I'm just curious why the "skeptics" here are not more critical of a Commission Report that in Lee Hamilton's words was "set up to fail." Or the incompetence of the Acting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Richard Myers.

[Par]

I'm just curious why the "skeptics" here are not more critical of a Commission Report that in Lee Hamilton's words was "set up to fail."


At the risk of derailing, while they indeed had sincere reservations about how it was formed, funded and so forth, neither Hamilton nor Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is also a quotation from their book Without Precedent:

Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.


In short, whether or not they believe that the commission was “set up to fail”, they don’t believe that it actually did fail.

[RedIbis]

Geez, I could swear that I repeatedly asked RedIbis to name something significant that the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong, and he said he could not. Huh. I must be thinking of someone else.


A reminder: this thread is about William Rodriguez.


Please. When did I say I couldn't point something that the Commission Report gets wrong? Clearly, you must be thinking of someone you don't have on ignore.

[Par]

Please. When did I say I couldn't point something that the Commission Report gets wrong? Clearly, you must be thinking of someone you don't have on ignore.


Well, by all means, start a new thread devoted to the subject.

[ref]

A new video of Rodriguez has come out

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=6397746163648527211

It gives an explanation why Willie was late that day. It was such a beautiful day, he wanted to stay home. So he called his supervisor and wanted to have a sick day off.

His current explanation of what happened in the basement:

BOOM! An explosion so loud, that pushes upwards in the air. The walls cracked, the floor(?) ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated, everybody started screaming in horror. In pure horror, because we didn't know what it was. And the first thing that comes to my mind, is that a generator blew up in the basement, in the mechanical room.

A far cry from a rumble, I would say.

Again, he says 7 seconds separated the basement explosion and the impact on top.

He goes on to say:

I don't know if it was a bomb or not. I am not an expert in explosives. It sounded like one. It made the noise like one. It created a destruction level, that I wouldn't expect anything else to be, but that, was that a bomb, I have no idea what it was.

He also mentions once again saving hundreds of people.

[RedIbis]

A reminder: this thread is about William Rodriguez.

Indeed and that is why I took another look at your paper and have the following questions:

I’ve been holding off posting this because I was waiting on some important information.

The last part of this long post is the email a friend of mine received from Rodriguez himself. My friend is able to correspond with Mr. Rodriguez, and he was kind enough to respond. I thought Mark and the rest might find it interesting.

But first, if these questions can be addressed. I’ll post the email response in a second post so it doesn’t get too long.


First, how do you know Mr. Rodriguez "was only a hundred feet from the collapse”? What is the source for this?

Doesn't the account you include in your paper of Mr. Arturo Griffith contradict your premise?

If Mr. Griffith is being pulled out of the elevator after being injured by some type of explosion, and then a fireball comes down the elevator shaft, how could the source of the fireball and what injured Mr. Griffith be from the same event?

In fact, it substantiates Mr. Rodriguez's testimony because obviously some significant amount of time had to pass while Mr. Griffith was "trapped" and "unconscious" and while rescuers "had to follow his voice."

[RedIbis]

This is the aforementioned email. I think we got a bit more than we bargained for because it appears Mr. Rodriguez is quite familiar with Gravy's paper.

Here it is:

“They have been going crazy since I used all of Roberts’ negative attacks to get publicity, turn the families of 9/11 against him and then go around the world based on my exposure, and hate mails from the jref crowd. Their envy and desperation of not being able to have me on their 2 cent TV show is laughable most of the times. This week alone, with C-span showing my testimony nationwide repeatedly, we were able to reach more than12 million people on one channel alone. When I point this out to them, they ignore it. I make fun of him at the beginning of my presentation on TV. Roberts kept quiet about it. In his desperation , he sent emails to the organizers of the event and tried to imply that I was antisemitic and a
holocaust denier because I have made presentations in places where people with these views have been present. He fails to mention that I have openly
exposed this antisemites and have spoken around the world about their stupidity.He fails to mention how I get attacked by them and have been called "Zionist controlled" ( wwww.Iamthewitness.com ).

I placed a bet with Ronald Weick about how many people we could reach separately in 3 weeks period and he totally ignored it. Their tactic is to attack, to get a reaction, once they get your reaction, they engage you to their questioning."

William Rodriguez in an email to a friend of mine.

[Civilized Worm]

So no explanation as to why he changed his story then? He sure loves to brag about the publicity he's getting.

[ref]

So no explanation as to why he changed his story then? He sure loves to brag about the publicity he's getting.

He constantly claims he has been misquoted by the media.

How can you be misquoted, when talking about a rumble like moving furniture? It sure is a long leap from walls cracking and ceiling falling on top of you and an explosion that pushes you upwards. His rumble comment can simply not be a misquote of that magnitude.

Another fine example is his jet fuel comment. Has he been misquoted, when he talked about jet fuel? Someone just made that story up? I seriously doubt it. Once again, he can not have been misquoted that badly.

Conclusion is, he has said what he is quoted of saying. Claiming he has been misquoted doesn't change the fact, that he cannot have been misquoted as badly as he claims.

[ref]

I will quote you, so Mark can see your post.

But first, if these questions can be addressed. I’ll post the email response in a second post so it doesn’t get too long.


First, how do you know Mr. Rodriguez "was only a hundred feet from the collapse”? What is the source for this?

Doesn't the account you include in your paper of Mr. Arturo Griffith contradict your premise?

If Mr. Griffith is being pulled out of the elevator after being injured by some type of explosion, and then a fireball comes down the elevator shaft, how could the source of the fireball and what injured Mr. Griffith be from the same event?

In fact, it substantiates Mr. Rodriguez's testimony because obviously some significant amount of time had to pass while Mr. Griffith was "trapped" and "unconscious" and while rescuers "had to follow his voice."

[MikeW]

This is the aforementioned email.

So basically "you're all jealous", "I can reach more people than you" and "I'm doing important things all around the world". Thanks, RedIbis. Mr Rodriguez reveals more of himself than he realises, I think.

[Gravy]

First, how do you know Mr. Rodriguez "was only a hundred feet from the collapse”? What is the source for this? If you're going to quote me, then quote me: "He was only about 100 feet from the north tower when it collapsed." The source is William Rodriguez. Ask him.

Doesn't the account you include in your paper of Mr. Arturo Griffith contradict your premise?No.

Since I have you on ignore, do not address questions to me. I gave you more than enough opportunities to make your case with facts and logic. You repeatedly blew it by spewing nonsense and denialism.

[ref]

So basically "you're all jealous", "I can reach more people than you" and "I'm doing important things all around the world". Thanks, RedIbis. Mr Rodriguez reveals more of himself than he realises, I think.

That is his usual act. He makes sure everyone knows how many contacts he has, how many performances he has given, how many people he has reached, which TV networks broadcast his comments and how many family members he knows. That's his nature.

[RedIbis]

I will quote you, so Mark can see your post.

I don't think he appreciates that as much as I do.

[RedIbis]

If you're going to quote me, then quote me: "He was only about 100 feet from the north tower when it collapsed." The source is William Rodriguez. Ask him.

No.

Since I have you on ignore, do not address questions to me. I gave you more than enough opportunities to make your case with facts and logic. You repeatedly blew it by spewing nonsense and denialism.

Mark, (but not really addressed to Mark since he has me on ignore and has forbidden me from addressing him directly)

Where does Rodriguez say this? Do you have the source? If you simply say, Rodriguez told me or Rodriquez said it, then it's hearsay, and not a valid way to develop a paper.

Now that my questions are logical and based on fact, you will refuse to answer them?

[DGM]

Mark, (but not really addressed to Mark since he has me on ignore and has forbidden me from addressing him directly)

Where does Rodriguez say this? Do you have the source? If you simply say, Rodriguez told me or Rodriquez said it, then it's hearsay, and not a valid way to develop a paper.
Now that my questions are logical and based on fact, you will refuse to answer them?

Doesn't that make all interviews by anyone invalid?

[T.A.M.]

RedIbis:

That is not true. If I am told by a murderer that he killed someone, it is not hearsay, it is a confession. Likewise, if Rodriguez tells Mark something regarding Rodriguez's own location or actions that day, it is not hearsay, it is direct testimony. Just because Mark is not a NY Times reporter, and just because Mark has not printed it in a magazine, does not make it hearsay.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

RedIbis:

That is not true. If I am told by a murderer that he killed someone, it is not hearsay, it is a confession. Likewise, if Rodriguez tells Mark something regarding Rodriguez's own location or actions that day, it is not hearsay, it is direct testimony. Just because Mark is not a NY Times reporter, and just because Mark has not printed it in a magazine, does not make it hearsay.

TAM:)

Gravy said the source is Rodriguez. Where? When? What interview? What were Rodriguez's words? Or do we just take Gravy's assessment at face value?

See the problem here?

[RedIbis]

Doesn't that make all interviews by anyone invalid?

No because there is a format for sourcing even personal interviews. They take place at a certain time, a certain place and are usually taped so that the quotes can be verified.

C'mon guys, Gravy wrote a scathing paper, I'm just asking him to back up some of his major assertions.

[DGM]

No because there is a format for sourcing even personal interviews. They take place at a certain time, a certain place and are usually taped so that the quotes can be verified.

C'mon guys, Gravy wrote a scathing paper, I'm just asking him to back up some of his major assertions.
I was questioning your definition of hearsay.
If you simply say, Rodriguez told me or Rodriquez said it, then it's hearsay, and not a valid way to develop a paper.

Your question has been quoted and only Mark can answer the source question.

[RedIbis]

Your question has been quoted and only Mark can answer the source question.

Does anyone else find this a juvenile way to conduct a discussion? To my knowledge no one else has put me on ignore. I'm not rude, use profanity, or in any other way break the rules. My questions are specific and valid.

So what gives?

[T.A.M.]

Gravy said the source is Rodriguez. Where? When? What interview? What were Rodriguez's words? Or do we just take Gravy's assessment at face value?

See the problem here?

My impression was that Rodriguez had said this to Mark himself. If not, then yes providing the source or Rodriguez work would be appropriate for validation. If Rodriguez said this to Mark himself, then it is up to you whether you trust the source, just as it would be if he said it to Wolf Blitzer (CNN).

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Does anyone else find this a juvenile way to conduct a discussion? To my knowledge no one else has put me on ignore. I'm not rude, use profanity, or in any other way break the rules. My questions are specific and valid.

So what gives?

Perhaps juvenile is a bit much, but obtuse, for sure.

However, Gravy has said he does not wish to converse with you, and you continue. My suggestion, if you do not wish this obtuse line of conversation to continue, you simply give up trying to communicate with someone who has purposely put you on ignore.

just a suggestion.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

My impression was that Rodriguez had said this to Mark himself. If not, then yes providing the source or Rodriguez work would be appropriate for validation. If Rodriguez said this to Mark himself, then it is up to you whether you trust the source, just as it would be if he said it to Wolf Blitzer (CNN).

TAM:)

Whether it's investigative journalism or academic research, such assertions require sourcing. This is a simple matter. The point itself is minor, but the implications are huge because if Mark didn't cite a reference for this, what else has he asserted without documentation?

The stickier issue is that the account of Arturo Griffith contradicts the premise of Mark's paper.

[RedIbis]

Perhaps juvenile is a bit much, but obtuse, for sure.

However, Gravy has said he does not wish to converse with you, and you continue. My suggestion, if you do not wish this obtuse line of conversation to continue, you simply give up trying to communicate with someone who has purposely put you on ignore.

just a suggestion.

TAM:)

I might give up on communicating with Mark directly, but I won't stop scrutinizing his work, asking good questions, and pressing these important points.

Don't you find it strange that Mark put me on ignore, especially since he set up a thread addressing me directly?

[Par]

Don't you find it strange that Mark put me on ignore, especially since he set up a thread addressing me directly?


Well, in saying that, you seem to be attempting to create the impression that he started a thread in which he intended to communicate with you. This is not the case. You frequently allude to significant errors in the 9/11 Commission Report. However, you haven’t yet been able to list any. He set up the thread in question specifically for you to do so.

More generally, I don’t know when or why he started to ignore you. So, it’s hard to say whether it’s strange or not.

[Gravy]

I took RedIbis off ignore when I started that thread, and told him he was going back on ignore after he declined to address the OP.

Any more derailing posts about my putting him on ignore will be reported to the moderators.

[SDC]

Mr (Ms?) R.Ibis, you should probably read the paper Mr Gravy posted about Mr Rodriguez: http://911stories.googlepages.com/home I assume that is the one. It's headed William Rodriguez, Escape Artist and I found out via G's OP on the "Gravysites" thread. Presumably it includes his sources and documentation.

With regard to claims of "Hearsay," I can't speak in legal terms, but I can speak as a formally trained (academic, PhD, published) historian. If Fred says "Barney said X to me," and Fred is regarded as a trustworthy source, it will probably be acceptable (within limits). But if Fred says "Barney said that the Mayor of Bedrock said X to him," we are stretching it further; we have to consider whether both Fred and Barney are regarded as trustworthy, there are issues of mutual comprehension (do Fred, Barney, and the Mayor all speak the same language), and so on; a degrees of separation kind of thing.

Anyhow, please read Mr Gravy's posted papers and perhaps you'll find your sources.

Thanks.

[T.A.M.]

exactly SDC. It is testimony from the person in question, the one who was "Standing 100 feet away" so it is not hearsay. As far as sourcing goes, the source is the person in question, which Mark has stated, so he has stated his source.

Now RedIbis, can you admit that this is the case, whether you believe Mark or not, and move on?

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

exactly SDC. It is testimony from the person in question, the one who was "Standing 100 feet away" so it is not hearsay. As far as sourcing goes, the source is the person in question, which Mark has stated, so he has stated his source.

Just as a comment in support of this, it's not uncommon in a scientific paper to cite a reference of the form "J. Smith, private communication". It allows the author, for example, to cite work that has yet to be published. Of course, it's possible that the cited work may not ever be published and thus itself open to scrutiny, but the reader is able to see this and is therefore able to apply a suitably reduced weight to the reference, which is not the same as discounting it altogether.

Dave

[Gravy]

Just as a comment in support of this, it's not uncommon in a scientific paper to cite a reference of the form "J. Smith, private communication". It allows the author, for example, to cite work that has yet to be published. Of course, it's possible that the cited work may not ever be published and thus itself open to scrutiny, but the reader is able to see this and is therefore able to apply a suitably reduced weight to the reference, which is not the same as discounting it altogether.

DaveTrue, but whether Rodriguez was 50 feet or 300 feet from the building has no bearing on the claims I examine in the paper. As far as the narrative goes, it only matters that he narrowly escaped with his life. Unable to read past the first page, RedIbis has chosen a completely inconsequential part of Rodriguez's story to question. Again, RedIbis should ask Rodriguez if he requires further details about that.

[Swing Dangler]

Is there any chance of tracing the route the fuel/fireball took to the basement as far down as B-4 using some graphics, blueprints and layouts of the elevator shafts and matching those with the witnesses and survivors accounts and their position?

Also, any chance or explanation of how the structure and people (Stanley e.g.)nearest the impact survived the initial explosion, but parts of the building farthest away from impact were damaged and destroyed? You know that whole over pressure damage thing...

[GreNME]

Not to get into too much detail without having names of papers and page numbers to point out (I'm at work), but how many times can one go over the words of a person's stated eyewitness report before the fallability of eyewitness testimony in the face of forensic evidence is taken into account? It seems to me that something common among the "alternative" theory movement is the attempt to come at the incident as a criminal investigation, but with focus shifting between actual evidence, speculative evidence, and often an inordinate amount of currency lent to eyewitness account without first establishing frame of mind, contextual understanding, and perspective.

I ask this mostly because in all the study I have done on the issue, one of the things I have tried to avoid is dissecting eyewitness testimony to the semantical level of individual words, phrases, and (if any) sworn testimony. The reason I've veered away from this is based on the idea that I don't want my opinion based in one direction or the other on the testimony of people who would naturally have been under extreme distress at the time everything happened, and have undeniably had that color their hindsight of the events to whatever degree it has.

If this belongs in its own thread, let me know. I am bringing it up here mostly because of its relevance to Willy Rodriquez as allegedly being a witness of some kind of higher credibility, despite his prior association with the buildings (his job), the obvious environmental stressors during the crisis (I mean, how do you react in a situation like that?), and most importantly the events and associations he has gone on to forge and strengthen since the time of the accident (because your hindsight of something does change depending on how you describe it and how much you repeat it).

[RedIbis]

Let's refocus because this is starting to become contentious.

I read Gravy's paper, found a claim on the first page and asked for the source.

Even a personal interview can be cited correctly. That's all I'm asking for.

For a subject as complex as this, the difference between 100 or 300 feet is quite significant.

When and where did Rodriguez say that he was 100ft from the tower when it collapsed.

Why is this question construed as invalid, insignificant or wothy of being ignored?

I'm trying to be calm and honest here, guys.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Let's refocus because this is starting to become contentious.

I read Gravy's paper, found a claim on the first page and asked for the source.

Even a personal interview can be cited correctly. That's all I'm asking for.

For a subject as complex as this, the difference between 100 or 300 feet is quite significant.

When and where did Rodriguez say that he was 100ft from the tower when it collapsed.

Why is this question construed as invalid, insignificant or wothy of being ignored?

I'm trying to be calm and honest here, guys.
Do any conclusions, or analyses, in the paper rely upon the quote in question?

[T.A.M.]

GreNME:

Welcome to the forum.

RedIbis:

I have no problem with proper citation, if the information is deemed to be of consequence.
TAM:)

[Gravy]

Do any conclusions, or analyses, in the paper rely upon the quote in question?Ooh! Ooh! Call on me!

Oh, that's right. I already answered that.

RedIbis is welcome to take up the study of the many, many statements in my paper for which I do not provide citations beyond Rodriguez's word, such as that Rodriguez's name is Rodriguez, that he was with 14 other people in the basement office, that he had a show on New Jersey public television, that he made it to the 39th floor and not the 40th, and on, and on. Think of all the details it's possible to get lost in while avoiding addressing the claims!

[RedIbis]

Ooh! Ooh! Call on me!

Oh, that's right. I already answered that.

RedIbis is welcome to take up the study of the many, many statements in my paper for which I do not provide citations beyond Rodriguez's word, such as that Rodriguez's name is Rodriguez, that he was with 14 other people in the basement office, that he had a show on New Jersey public television, that he made it to the 39th floor and not the 40th, and on, and on. Think of all the details it's possible to get lost in while avoiding addressing the claims!

So Rodriguez's location when the tower collapses is inconsequential and does not require a source?

You said Rodriguez said it, where? when? and to whom?

Other than your response of "no." It would be helpful if you could address the slight problem of how much time passes from the explosion which injures Mr. Griffith and the fireball observed in the elevator shaft. As I've explained, these cannot be from the same event and therefore, undermines the premise of your paper.

I'm not going to engage in the somewhat surreal and juvenile discussion by quotation due to ignore. I choose to address you directly.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ooh! Ooh! Call on me!

Oh, that's right. I already answered that.

RedIbis is welcome to take up the study of the many, many statements in my paper for which I do not provide citations beyond Rodriguez's word, such as that Rodriguez's name is Rodriguez, that he was with 14 other people in the basement office, that he had a show on New Jersey public television, that he made it to the 39th floor and not the 40th, and on, and on. Think of all the details it's possible to get lost in while avoiding addressing the claims!
RedIbis, do you agree with Gravy's assertion that no conclusions are drawn from, nor any arguments built upon, the quote under discussion?

If your answer is, "yes," then any further discussion regarding this quote is a red herring and is irrelevant to the original premise of this thread.

If you answer is, "no," then please provide a specific citation from Gravy's paper and explain, in a logically consistent manner, why the citation counters Gravy's claim that no conclusions are drawn from, nor arguments built upon, the quote.

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, do you agree with Gravy's assertion that no conclusions are drawn from, nor any arguments built upon, the quote under discussion?

If your answer is, "yes," then any further discussion regarding this quote is a red herring and is irrelevant to the original premise of this thread.

If you answer is, "no," then please provide a specific citation from Gravy's paper and explain, in a logically consistent manner, why the citation counters Gravy's claim that no conclusions are drawn from, nor arguments built upon, the quote.

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.

Even a public access television show can be cited as a source. It simply requires the date, time, and TV channel of the original broadcast, and a timestamp for the quote would be even more specific.

I would also like to add that what you might think of as insignificant, if uncited and unsourced, is very significant and will put in doubt any number of claims if they, too, have no source or citation, especially papers that are subjective, presumptuous, and based on conjecture.

[Disbelief]

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.

Even a public access television show can be cited as a source. It simply requires the date, time, and TV channel of the original broadcast, and a timestamp for the quote would be even more specific.

I would also like to add that what you might think of as insignificant, if uncited and unsourced, is very significant and will put in doubt any number of claims if they, too, have no source or citation, especially papers that are subjective, presumptuous, and based on conjecture.

Doesn't this describe the TM? All the truth sites do is source each other, like some cyber circe jerk.

[DavidJames]

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.

Even a public access television show can be cited as a source. It simply requires the date, time, and TV channel of the original broadcast, and a timestamp for the quote would be even more specific.

I would also like to add that what you might think of as insignificant, if uncited and unsourced, is very significant and will put in doubt any number of claims if they, too, have no source or citation, especially papers that are subjective, presumptuous, and based on conjecture.
Nice job, you completely avoided answering the question. You couldn't answer a simple yes or no question.

Can't say I'm shocked though.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.

Even a public access television show can be cited as a source. It simply requires the date, time, and TV channel of the original broadcast, and a timestamp for the quote would be even more specific.

I would also like to add that what you might think of as insignificant, if uncited and unsourced, is very significant and will put in doubt any number of claims if they, too, have no source or citation, especially papers that are subjective, presumptuous, and based on conjecture.
This does not answer my simple "yes/no" question.

Are there any conclusions drawn from, or arguments based upon, the quote in question? yes or no?

[Norseman]

Other than your response of "no." It would be helpful if you could address the slight problem of how much time passes from the explosion which injures Mr. Griffith and the fireball observed in the elevator shaft. As I've explained, these cannot be from the same event and therefore, undermines the premise of your paper.

RedIbis, the injuries to Mr Griffith and the elevator car was caused by the abrupt braking of the falling elevator. The elevator fell because the impact of Flight 11 cut the elevator cables up in the impact zone.

The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors. The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury.
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/life/sept11/2002-09-10-surivivor-griffiths_x.htm)

Arturo's elevator would drop in the same instant that the cable was cut. While the fireball of burning fuel would need more time to travel all the way down to the basement from the impact zone. Something in order of 30 seconds, as discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099). Plenty of time for coworkers to jump into the elevator to rescue Arturo and Marlene Cruz before the fireball arrived.

Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.
http://911digitalarchive.org/parser.php?object_id=514

Here is Rodriguez's account to CNN on 11 september 2001:
RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body.
CNN Transcipt (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html)

The first rumble fits with falling elevator cars. The second rumble fits with fuel fireballs coming down the elevator shafts from the impact zone.

Actually you find all this in Gravy's very excellent paper here. (http://911stories.googlepages.com/comparisonofwitnessaccountstorodriguezst2)

The only tiny little issue I have with that paper is that Gravy speculates that the smoke Arturo describes, after the elevator car halted, was from the impact zone. My take on it, is that the smoke probably was generated by extreme friction heat from the breaking device. In addition we have to assume that the wind from the falling elevator must have stirred up years of dust inside the elevator shaft.

RedIbis, the conclusion is that Arturo Griffith's story supports Gravy's paper very well indeed. And it also fits with the account Rodriguez's gave to CNN on September 11th 2001 perfectly. But it does not support Rodriguez's later versions of his story. I understand very well why Gravy has put you on ignore.

[RedIbis]

This does not answer my simple "yes/no" question.

Are there any conclusions drawn from, or arguments based upon, the quote in question? yes or no?


There are many conclusions I might draw from the fact that Gravy does not source his contention that Rodriguez was about a hundred feet from the tower when it collapsed.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There are many conclusions I might draw from the fact that Gravy does not source his contention that Rodriguez was about a hundred feet from the tower when it collapsed.
Conclusions drawn in the paper, not from the paper. Stop being deliberately obtuse and answer the question.

[WildCat]

There are many conclusions I might draw from the fact that Gravy does not source his contention that Rodriguez was about a hundred feet from the tower when it collapsed.
Run away RedIbis, run boy! And IGNORE THE QUESTION, because the answer makes you look bad! :run:

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, the conclusion is that Arturo Griffith's story supports Gravy's paper very well indeed. And it also fits with the account Rodriguez's gave to CNN on September 11th 2001 perfectly. But it does not support Rodriguez's later versions of his story. I understand very well why Gravy has put you on ignore.


Those are some very slow "fireballs."

Please review the amount of things which occur before the appearance of the fireball in the elevator.

"He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him."

And you're trying to tell me, and I suppose what Gravy is trying to tell Rodriguez, is that this all happens before the fireball in the elevator shaft.

In fact, they still had to go back and get another woman first.

Those are some very slow magic, I mean, fuel fireballs.

And this is all premised on the tremendous assumption that the fuel could even travel downwards at least 95 floors.

Forgive my skepticism.

[RedIbis]

Run away RedIbis, run boy! And IGNORE THE QUESTION, because the answer makes you look bad! :run:

That's not likely to happen.

Apparently, what upsets some folks here is that I don't dance like a monkey when you try to get me to answer your leading questions.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's not likely to happen.

Apparently, what upsets some folks here is that I don't dance like a monkey when you try to get me to answer your leading questions.
How is it a leading question? I clearly spelled out why it was a yes/no question; and the implications of each answer.

It is either (a) a valid criticism or (b) a red herring. Why are you refusing to assist in resolving which it is? Scratch that, I don't give a rat's ass why. Just answer the question with regard to the use of the quote in the paper.

[RedIbis]

How is it a leading question? I clearly spelled out why it was a yes/no question; and the implications of each answer.

It is either (a) a valid criticism or (b) a red herring. Why are you refusing to assist in resolving which it is? Scratch that, I don't give a rat's ass why. Just answer the question with regard to the use of the quote in the paper.

This is the last thing I'm saying about this because it's a waste of time.

You're not asking a sincere question. You set up two very narrow possibilities and ask me to choose. Sorry, like I said, I don't dance like a monkey for you.
It reminds me of the Colbert bit, "Bush: great president or greatest president?"

It's a simple exercise. Gravy makes a claim. I ask him to provide the source. He doesn't.

I pointed out that his hypothesis that the same event which injures Arturo Griffith is not the same as what produced the fireball observed in the elevator shaft. I just spelled this out about two posts above.

[mortimer]

The only conclusion I can draw from RedIbis' answers to questions put forth is that there were demolition charges going on throughout the tower more than an hour and a half before the collapse. INSIDE JOBBUSHDIDIT!!!!thirteen1!

[Civilized Worm]

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.


What's so important about it? What does it have to do with Rodriguez ever changing story?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This is the last thing I'm saying about this because it's a waste of time.

You're not asking a sincere question. You set up two very narrow possibilities and ask me to choose. Sorry, like I said, I don't dance like a monkey for you.
It reminds me of the Colbert bit, "Bush: great president or greatest president."
Just because there are only two choices does not mean that it must necessarily be a false choice fallacy. Either the quote is relevant to the conclusions in the paper; or it is not. There is no in-between.

It's a simple exercise. Gravy makes a claim. I ask him to provide the source. He doesn't.
Yes, but what is at issue is if the quote (not claim) that Gravy has in the paper is necessary for any of the conclusions in the paper. If the quote can be removed from the paper, in its entirety, then whether it is sourced or not is moot; as the quote is superfluous to the paper.

I pointed out that his hypothesis that the same event which injures Arturo Griffith is not the same as what produced the fireball observed in the elevator shaft. I just spelled this out about two posts above.
I didn't ask you to make assumptions or draw conclusions of the intent of the quote; I asked you to source where the quote was used in the paper to draw a conclusion. These are vastly different things.

You may have a legitimate critique as to the relevance of the quote to the contents of the paper; however, if you are unable or unwilling to partake in the process of determining it then I am left with little choice but to relegate your statements about it to nothing more than your opinion.

Your claims that you are merely refusing to be manipulated amount to little more than hand-waving. You want give-and-take? I've already given you the benefit of the doubt that your criticism may have merit and should be discussed to resolution. Try returning the favor and take part in the process in a manner that is honest and not obtuse.

[RedIbis]

Your claims that you are merely refusing to be manipulated amount to little more than hand-waving. You want give-and-take? I've already given you the benefit of the doubt that your criticism may have merit and should be discussed to resolution. Try returning the favor and take part in the process in a manner that is honest and not obtuse.


You are correct. I refuse to be manipulated.

This is the first time that I've read anything resembling civility or an admission of merit.

I did not say that Gravy's paper is wrong from beginning to end, and he may raise valid points. I made two observations. I was honestly curious to know where the info for Rodriguez's location at the time of collapse is. I think that's significant. You don't. I'm ready to move on.

I understand that one false or unsubstantiated claim does not render an entire position invalid. I just thought it would be helpful to have the source. I forget how your question was phrased, but I think I just answered it.

Now, if that answers your question I hope that you might accept the challenge of a question. Mine will not require simply a yes or no answer.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
I did not say that Gravy's paper is wrong from beginning to end
I never said, or implied, that you did.

. . . I was honestly curious to know where the info for Rodriguez's location at the time of collapse is.
As am I.

I think that's significant.
As do I.

You don't.
I never said, or implied, this. What I said was the quote may not be significant to the paper in question.

. . . I understand that one false or unsubstantiated claim does not render an entire position invalid. Good, we certainly agree here.

I just thought it would be helpful to have the source. I forget how your question was phrased, but I think I just answered it.
Fair enough, though I would still like to see the quote sourced as a matter of good documentation.

Now, if that answers your question I hope that you might accept the challenge of a question. Mine will not require simply a yes or no answer.
Time permitting, I'll do what I can to answer.

[Gravy]

Yes, but what is at issue is if the quote (not claim) that Gravy has in the paper is necessary for any of the conclusions in the paper. If the quote can be removed from the paper, in its entirety, then whether it is sourced or not is moot; as the quote is superfluous to the paper.Anyway, he's lying. In my response to him I told him the source of that inconsequential statement: William Rodriguez. There's a photo of me speaking with Rodriguez on the first page of the paper. I suggested that RedIbis contact him with his own questions. I don't know why people continue to deal with this blatant liar.

[RedIbis]

Time permitting, I'll do what I can to answer.

I think we're on to something, sir. I hope we both get answers to the questions we agree on.

Does Mr. Griffith's account suggest that there is a significant amount of time between the event which dropped the freight elevator and the fireball reported after the "woman" was rescued?