Rosie & Willie Rodriguez (Video)

fullflavormenthol said:
As a fact that corroborates his testimony.
Click to expand...

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



fullflavormenthol said:
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.
Click to expand...

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





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

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

False analogy. The green-cheese example actually conflicts with known physical laws--Rodriguez's claims (the one in the video) do not. So you won't admit that you just don't know?
 
Dave Rogers said:
False dilemma, as usual. The claim cannot be evaluated as true or false,
Click to expand...

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

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



Foolmewunz said:
"Well he says he knows of witnesses, so we should believe him." Why?
Click to expand...

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




Foolmewunz said:
What I fail to see is you keeping an open mind that he could be full of crap.
Click to expand...

He could be full of crap. I'll admit that--but I just don't know. Will you admit the same?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Actually he DID say a bomb.
Click to expand...

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


Jonnyclueless said:
Do you admit that many of his claims are proven untrue?
Click to expand...

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

STOP IT WITH THE DODGE. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? Will you? Yes or no?
 
radical_logic said:
What's so outrageous about the claim that he heard and felt an explosion from below - which also lifted him and others off the ground - before he heard the explosion from above?
Click to expand...

He started making this claim around October, 2004.

He did not mention anything like this in the CNN interview on 9/11/01.
He did not mention anything like this in the CNN interview on 9/11/02.
He did not mention anything like this in NIST Public Hearing on February 12, 2004.

Why did he wait 3 years to make this claim? Why did he wait until the Commission report was out to make this claim? Why does he insist he presented this claim to 9/11 Commission in 2004, but did not present this claim to NIST in 2004 when he was heard?
 
Last edited:
ref said:
He started making this claim around October, 2004.

He did not mention anything like this in the CNN interview on 9/11/01.
He did not mention anything like this in the CNN interview on 9/11/02.
He did not mention anything like this in NIST Public Hearing on February 12, 2004.

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


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

Why don't you ask him? Perhaps you might just get a straight answer out of him.
 
radical_logic said:
You ask as if there are obvious answers to those questions. I don't know, and neither do you. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, lets do this: I will admit that Rodriquez is not credible. Will you admit that Rodriquez is not credible? I will. Will you? Yes or no
 
Unbelievable. After four pages of this nonsense, not one hack-"debunker" will admit that he doesn't know whether the two claims i noted are true or false. Not one.
 
Willie: "I knew how to manipulate the media."

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

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

It makes clear that, while not discounting Willie's genuine heroism on 9/11, the tragic events of that day and his role in them were his ticket to ride to fame and notoriety.
 
radical_logic said:
You ask as if there are obvious answers to those questions. I don't know, and neither do you. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

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

Of course, since you are after a 100% answer, we cannot say we are 100% sure that he didn't feel or experience anything he now claims he did. But taking into account all his statements and behaviour before and after October 2004, it's a safe bet to determine that his earlier comments are more correct than his later ones.
 
Last edited:
radical_logic said:
You ask as if there are obvious answers to those questions. I don't know, and neither do you. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

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

Willy is LYING.

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

But he doesn't care how silly his lies are because he knows that his audience (ie. YOU) desperately want to believe his story and so he won't be bothered with tough questions like "why did this all suddenly occur to you 3+ years later?"
 
And Radical Logic leaves the room in anger, swearing never to return, and he will be back within a few minutes. High School Drama Queen behavior at it;s worst.
But not for me. I just put the guy on ignore.
 
radical_logic said:
You're a liar. He did NOT say "a bomb" in the Rosie-video. I'm tired of your dishonesty and intellectual laziness.
Click to expand...

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




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

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

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

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

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

This just proves you, like littel Willie are on a witch hunt. You know you can't back your beliefs up so you use these dishonest tactics to try and mislead people.
 
The public will gain access to the 9/11 Commission records in 2009. The records are stored in the National Archives.

Any bets, did Willie say the things he claims he said to the commission?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom