• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

RedIbis said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Seems quite clear to me. I wonder why he's changed his story now?
 
DGM said:
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.
Click to expand...
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".
 
Mr. Skinny said:
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".
Click to expand...
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 said:
Where in your quote does Rodriguez say that the ball of fire was from jet fuel?
Click to expand...


I think what he means is that the original testimony is compatible with a jet-fuel explosion yet incompatible with an ordnance explosion.
 
MikeW said:
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
Click to expand...

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

RedIbis said:
Where in your quote does Rodriguez say that the ball of fire was from jet fuel?
Click to expand...


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.
 
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:
William Rodriguez said:
"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.
Click to expand...
http://911stories.googlepages.com/rodriguezstatementtonist​
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.' " Source
Click to expand...
http://911digitalarchive.org/seiu/details/54​
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.
 
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.
 
Gravy said:
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:
On the first page he could also have read this statement of Arturo Griffith, who was in the elevator described above.
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.)
 
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.
 
RedIbis said:
Where in your quote does Rodriguez say that the ball of fire was from jet fuel?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
DGM said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DGM said:
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.
Click to expand...


This is highly likely, considering the actual impacts were picked up on LDEO seismographs.
 
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?
 
mjd1982 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Apparently only cause he was denied lodgings in a couple of hotels in england? Are you deliberately misleading here?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom