Does anyone else back up William Rodriguez's story?

Swing Dangler said:
Also, will anybody be using the graphic that I posted to point to the elevator shaft that caused the damage in the lobby?[/B] Also, Gumbot, it is not a poor representation for this case, because it shows the shafts that reached the lobby area versus the impact zone. How many shafts did you count?;)
Click to expand...



It's Gumboot.

And no, it is not a good representation at all. The WTC elevator shafts ran the entire length of the building. Elevators were stacked up inside them.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
It's Gumboot.

And no, it is not a good representation at all. The WTC elevator shafts ran the entire length of the building. Elevators were stacked up inside them.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

False. Name one elevator shaft, besides 6,7, and 50 which had continuity from the lower levels to above the 78th floor sky lobby.

Here is a quote of interest from Gravy's paper.

According to the accounts I have heard, Debbie was in the lobby waiting for an elevator when AA Flight 11 hit on 93. The jet fuel from the plane poured down the elevator shafts. Owing to the way the elevators are laid out, I don't understand how the fuel got into the elevator that she was waiting for. There are / (were) "Sky Lobbies" on 44 and on 78. So to go above those floors, you took an express elevator to the appropriate sky lobby and then transferred to a local elevator. The elevator machinery was located on the floors above the sky lobbies; only a very few shafts continued all the way up. Anyway, apparently she was in the lobby, the elevator shaftway doors opened and a fireball hit her with full force. She survived and was taken to a hospital with 90% burns. After lingering for about 50 days she died.
Click to expand...
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AlMasetti.html
 
You know, when I read so much emphasis being put into every nuance of what startled and frightened people suddenly caught up in this sort of situation say, I remember what happened after the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in London on 22nd July 2005.

Much coverage was given to an alleged eyewitness account of the victim fleeing from pursuing police officers, looking like "a hunted fox", then tripping up just as he entered the train carriage, at which point the pursuing cops sort of fell on him in a heap, and he was shot several times.

This all went remarkably quiet when a full enquiry was held into what actually happened. Which was that the victim boarded the train in the normal manner, apparently unaware that anyone was behind him, looked around, chose a seat, sat down and opened his newspaper. At which point a firearms team entered the train, the policeman who had been tailing him covertly pointed out to that team who the suspect was, and one of the team went up to him, forced him back into his seat (he'd begun to get to his feet as he realised somehing was going on) and shot him seven times in the back of the head.

Now I've left out some of the other erroneous details such as the assertion that the victim jumped over the ticket barrier (he didn't, he used his season ticket in the usual way) or the assertion that he was dressed in improbably heavy clothing for such a warm day (he wasn't, he had on only jeans, a t-shirt and a light denim jacket which wasn't even fastened). I've ignored these because it's possible - indeed likely - that the reports were prompted by someone seeing someone else (probably a policeman with body armour on) jump the ticket barrier, so they're just mistaken, not completely wrong.

However, the running man fleeing from running police officers, looking like a hunted fox, and tripping as he entered the carriage, simply didn't happen at all. And yet an "eyewitness" was interviewed on TV very shortly after the event, describing exactly that.

It just puts the reliability of these accounts into some sort of perspective. You need to do what the enquiry did, and look at all the evidence and piece together all the accounts before you can begin to make out what actually happened. Just homing in on one person's anomalous account is extremely foolhardy.

Rolfe.
 
Gravy said:
Swing can't point out a single thing that's wrong with the official story, doesn't believe the eyewitnesses but won't contact them, and insists that the burden of proof for his fantasies is on us.
There, there, Swing.
There, there.
Click to expand...

Gravy, great job again on showing us how to dodge something.

1. I can't point out a single thing wrong with the official story, eh? Funny that this thread moved from explosives in the basement to now the official story which encompasses many things or the plot as a whole. Does that mean for you that an explosive device in the basement is a plausible attack scenario?

2. As I already stated, the burden of proof for Arturo's account is on your shoulders. Your stating he was in an elevator with Marlene. Where are your facts?

Lets go with all encompassing official story strawman though, Gravy, since you avoid the other issues.

3. Why do you suppose when calculating fuel remaining in the towers that the only air available for combustion was in the floors only? Or IYHO, is that not an error? If it is not an error, why isn't it?

4. Any chance we will see you explain how the same process that smoke machines create white kerosene vapor translates over to the sub-basement white smoke? Remember that burden of proof?;)

5. Oh and did you fail to include the contents of the buildings like walls, floors, sheet rock, etc in that "white" smoke cloud of yours that is supposedly jetfuelA vapor?

6. Also your whole white smoke picture is is a lesson in argument fallacies, in this case a false analogy. Do I need to explain why?

7. Will you be explaining to Alt+F4's errors in regards to her statements about the security of the complex?

CHF, why do you think I would use the initial press reports and earliest comments from the victims? Because later many were TOLD what had happened and over time, group think begins to set in. Immediately after the event or any event for that matter is when the purest discussion of what transpired tales place. Case in point is the interview that CIT did with the officer who forgot where his cruiser was in relation to the gas pumps.
Swing, was 9/11 carried out by Islamic terrorists or the US government?Can you at least answer that?
Click to expand...

So CHF and BJE, since you are ready to move on, do accept that it is plausible that terrorists used a device in the sublevels? And if not, what is the point in moving on?

1. In regards to the explosive device in the sub-level of WTC: North Tower, I think Islamic fundamentalists were responsible for the delivery and detonation of the device or devices.

2. In regards to 9/11 as a whole, I think there were a few individuals within the U.S. government's intelligence apparatus that assisted in the attacks.
But then that is strictly speculation at this point, isn't it?


False. Name one elevator shaft, besides 6,7, and 50 which had continuity from the lower levels to above the 78th floor sky lobby.
Click to expand...
Hard line, some people just don't get it do they?
 
Swing Dangler said:
CHF, why do you think I would use the initial press reports and earliest comments from the victims? Because later many were TOLD what had happened and over time, group think begins to set in.
Click to expand...

Yet you refuse to contact any of these people, preferring instead to draw your own conclusions over listening to them. That's rather poor "truthseeking."

In regards to the explosive device in the sub-level of WTC: North Tower, I think Islamic fundamentalists were responsible for the delivery and detonation of the device or devices.

In regards to 9/11 as a whole, I think there were a few individuals within the U.S. government's intelligence apparatus that assisted in the attacks. But then that is strictly speculation at this point, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Well according to another poster, you claimed on a chat board to have figured out a narrative of the plot. I’d love to hear it.

All I can currently do is piece together a story based on your statements to date.

So...you now take the positions that Islamic jihadists planted a bomb in the basement – something you refused to state before. Yet you’ve also stated repeatedly on SLC that the WTC towers were controlled demolitions (or “explosions of buildings” as you once put it).

So did those same jihadists rig up the towers? Did they also take down WTC7? Or did “a few individuals” in the CIA leave the planes and basement to Al Qaeda while doing the rest themselves?
 
Swing Dangler said:
Hard line, some people just don't get it do they?
Click to expand...

Here's the thing swing, i am willing to be proven wrong in any points i have raised here, and i will do so in such case. I don't believe i have made one false claim.

Gravy has put put me on ignore despite raising evidence disputing his suggestion that there was a refrigeration plant within the footprint of WTC 1. I will retract my claim if someone can prove otherwise.

I will put my neck on the cutting block here, and claim that Gravy's paper is deceiving in that the average reader will conclude that there are multiple shafts which extend to the lower levels above 78th floor skylobby. If Gravy admits that 6, 7, and 50 were the only shafts that had continuity above the 78th floor skylobby to the basement levels, i will retract that claim.

If not, it easy to show otherwise.

There are certainly some anomalies within the accounts of witnesses, for which i have heard no satisfying explanation from this forum.

As a start,

1. Can anyone show that McCabe was within the WTC 1 footprint?

2. Can anyone show that there was a possible route for jet fuel through elevator shafts other than shaft 6, 7, or 50? Name one shaft.
 
Gravy said:
WTC Elevators and Elevator Shaft Continuity

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2638339&postcount=220
Click to expand...


Gravy, thanks for removing the ignore.

Your paper is not specific enough, and as it should be a simple fact, could you please name one elevator car, beside 6, 7, and 50 which extended from the basement levels to above the 78th floor skylobby. Any will do.

Please show the stairs on the WTC 1 floorplans that McCabe was referring to when he went between the office area and the refrigeration plant.
Also please show on the floorplans, where McCabe walked office workers across the refrigeration plant to the PATH platform.

ETA: If the elevator shafts were stacked as you believe that description means, just name a lower car, that extended up into another shaft.
 
Last edited:
hard lines said:
Gravy, thanks for removing the ignore.

Your paper is not specific enough, and as it should be a simple fact, could you please name one elevator car, beside 6, 7, and 50 which extended from the basement levels to above the 78th floor skylobby. Any will do.
Click to expand...

Read the link he just gave you! It's all there, in pretty colours.

!!!
 
Hard line seems to be claiming that we claim that some other elevators ran the length of the buildings. I'd like him to show where anyone has said that, and I'd like him to look up the definition of "straw man argument."

What a pathetic display.
 
hard lines said:
Volatile, this should be easy. Just name one number elevator, and i will forever disappear.
Click to expand...

You ask for something you know does not exist and you have been shown is not required. What further proof of your intellectual dishonesty do we need?

Good day.
 
hard lines said:
Volatile, this should be easy. Just name one number elevator, and i will forever disappear.
Click to expand...

Eh? Your question makes no sense, as there were multiple cars in each shaft, stacked on top of each other. The link Gravy provided explains that and then illustrates in with coloured diagrams showing the continuity of the shafts! It's all there, in English, in layman's terms, and in pretty pictures. What more do you want?
 
Gravy said:
Hard line seems to be claiming that we claim that some other elevators ran the length of the buildings. I'd like him to show where anyone has said that, and I'd like him to look up the definition of "straw man argument."

What a pathetic display.
Click to expand...

Gravy, i know that gumboot does not speak for yourself, but here is his claim,

The WTC elevator shafts ran the entire length of the building. Elevators were stacked up inside them.
Click to expand...

Volatile also appears to be misled by your paper.

I mentioned that i would retract my claim that your paper is deceiving if you would admit that car 6, 7, and 50 were the only shafts to extend from the basement levels to above the 78th skylobby floor.

Do you now admit that? If so i retract my claim that your paper is deceiving.
 
I am glad that we have established that the only elevator shafts which had continuity from the basement levels to above the 78th floor skylobby were the shafts that contained cars 6, 7, and 50.

I hope that clears all confusion.

That is all for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom