Rosie & Willie Rodriguez (Video)

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

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

If some idiot decides to claim that the moon is made of cheese, but offers absolutely no evidence that such a thing could be possible, whereas in the real world we know from earthbound studies of the moon and our understanding of physics, that there are no cows up there and no people to process the (missing) cows (missing) milk into cheese, we can take that as pretty hard evidence that the idiot is a liar/insane/ignorant.
 
No, I have not. I have asserted the alleged existence of witnesses who might possibly corroborate Rodriguez's statements.

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

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

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



False, again.

Well that pretty much tells me I was right again.

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

I already explained my position. Trying to use a false dichotomy won't strengthen your case or get the results you are after.
 
Rodriguez claims to have heard an explosion from under him - which also lifted him and others up - before the plane struck the tower. Is this claim true or false? If it's false, what's the evidence for its falsity?

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

Since I have over 400 + posts,

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

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

No, I don't. As far as I can tell, William Rodriguez *is* a 9/11 victim. He lost his friends, he lost his job, and he lost his faith in his country on 9/11.
 
I bet there are plenty of doctors in the Baghdad burn unit that can tell you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I fail to see is you keeping an open mind that he could be full of crap.
 
1. Lay off the personal insults. (you know what I am talking about)

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

TAM:)

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

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

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

Where Willie stands all by his lonesome self is in his claim that it happened before the plane hit.
 
I was trying to illustrate the point that there are many survivors of such explosions, and they could be found in the Baghdad burn unit, for instance.
Problem is, you illustrated the point by your usual method - lying.

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

It's shrapnel setting fuel on fire in military vehicles that burns people. If you are close enough to the blast to be burnrd by it it doesn't matter, because you've just been blown to bits.
 
I'll put it this way: Do you have any hard or compelling evidence to suggest that his claims are false?

- he changed his story in 2005
- his new story isn't corroborated by anyone else with him at the time
- his new story makes no bloody sense (basement bombs in a top-down collapse???)
 
Last edited:
Well, Willie is Willie again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If he made no mention of these events to NIST on February 2004, did he actually make any mention of these events to the 9/11 commission in early 2004? Or is he just claiming he said this stuff to the 9/11 commission, because we cannot verify what he said to them?
 
Last edited:
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If by some chance this was insulting to you, I apologize. Again, my response was directed at the point you and WildCat? were making that people don't survive when close to a bomb explosion.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Do you admit that many of his claims are proven untrue?
 
I just scanned this thread.

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

You know, where he did not mention an explosion but referred to a "rumbling"?
 
What someone should do is post the one form 9/11 along with his later ones and chart it out so it's easy to see how much his story changes as he sees he isn't getting the attention he hoped for.

orignally: Slow rumble
then: Explosion
then: Explosion that lifted everyone off the ground
Then: Bomb
Then after lawsuit dismissed: Back to explosion that lifted everyone off the ground.
 
Just scanned this thread. We're asked to keep an open mind about extraordinary claims with no corroborating evidence to back them up. Nice.

Oh yea,
more changes than a chameleon on a kilt
I LOVE it!
 
I just scanned this thread.

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

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

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

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

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

Back
Top Bottom