Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since I only browse through this sub-forum occasionally, does Red state if he still stands by this when it comes to Willie Rodriquez?

Originally Posted by Red Ibis
it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account
Click to expand...

Perhaps he posted it on another thread?
 
TexasJack said:
Since I only browse through this sub-forum occasionally, does Red state if he still stands by this when it comes to Willie Rodriquez?



Perhaps he posted it on another thread?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. I never expected Rodriguez's account to be perfect. I also have never seen any evidence that he is a blatant liar, dramatically altering his account.
 
RedIbis said:
Yes, I do. I never expected Rodriguez's account to be perfect. I also have never seen any evidence that he is a blatant liar, dramatically altering his account.
Click to expand...



"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement, since the actual elevator operator of the 50A car is alive and after braking both ankles did not get burned by any of this. He should have been burned alive. He was never called to testify." William Rodriguez, December 2006


“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.” William Rodriguez, September 2002
"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." William Rodriguez, in a statement to NIST, February 2004.


Willie didn't have a problem with the "ball of fire" explanation before he became a conspiracy peddler.
 
RedIbis said:
Yes, I do. I never expected Rodriguez's account to be perfect. I also have never seen any evidence that he is a blatant liar, dramatically altering his account.
Click to expand...

So his earlier statements about balls of fire and elevators crashing is the one we should take? We ignore his later claptrap? (The claims he made in his court action)

If you stand by your statement then this is the only option.
 
Perhaps someone can help me (Mike?) - I´m searching for the 2006 order from Judge Leonie Brinkema about the non-release of the CVR audio from United 93. The order includes this passage:

The Court finds that the privacy rights of the victims and the concerns of family members about public disclosure of the audiotape outweigh any right of the public to have access to the recording. Moreover, the public availability of the transcript provides sufficient public access to the contents of the CVR.
Click to expand...

It´s a PDF, and IIRC I found it on vaed.uscourts.gov. Apparently, it´s not there anymore, and Google just provides newspaper articles about the order, not the PDF itself.
 
 
Last edited:
I think we need more threads started with "Truther" in the title. And who said this subforum has outlived its usefulness?
 
Is controlled demolition a requirement for MIHOP?

I brought this up in another thread and as I don't think it deserves it's own thread I thought I would ask it here.

(Besides TAM's thread should not be 2 pages down.:))
 
Dog Town said:
WHO?
Click to expand...

Jam...

In spite of, or perhaps because of all the evidence for no-planes on 9/11 I find that I still tend to reject the notion. Why would the perps use electronic trickery when using real planes was so much easier and less vulnerabe to mistakes ?

Look at all the mistakes and clues that serve as evidence for no-planes on the day of 9/11 ? They are everywhere. I don't believe for a minute that the perps would have employed a system as plainly defective and useless as that one. One or two errors could be made maybe but not the dozens we all saw and heard that pointed to video fakery on 9/11. The only conclusion that I can draw is that these 'errors' and clues are how the no-planes evidence may have been manufactured .

If I am right then that knowledge already brings us a long way because if the no-planes scenario is a complete fake then real planes did fly complete and undistorted and without losing any apparent speed through the heavy steel and concrete of the perimeter walls of the Twin Towers. That would be 100% impossible unless the steel columns in the walls and the floorslabs in the areas of impact had been specially prepared and weakened in advance somehow.

The flashes inside the buildings that we spoke about appear to me to indicate that the planes are hitting the building with absolute pinpoint precision which in turn means that the area of impact that needed preparation may have been relatively small. It would also certainly mean that the planes were under remote guidance. A human pilot could never be relied upon to achieve that level of accuracy Indeed at that speed even a tiny error from the computer would have seen the plane missing the Tower.and ploughing into the ground.

Think about it. Find any piece of no-planes evidence that could not have been manufactured in the scenario I describe.

Also think about the fact that if there was no no-planes theory people would have long ago been looking much much harder into how on Earth a plane that weighed just one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building could have flown undistorted through the heavy steel wall as though you could stick your hand seamlessly into a mirror.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Jam...

In spite of, or perhaps because of all the evidence for no-planes on 9/11 I find that I still tend to reject the notion. Why would the perps use electronic trickery when using real planes was so much easier and less vulnerabe to mistakes ?

Look at all the mistakes and clues that serve as evidence for no-planes on the day of 9/11 ? They are everywhere. I don't believe for a minute that the perps would have employed a system as plainly defective and useless as that one. One or two errors could be made maybe but not the dozens we all saw and heard that pointed to video fakery on 9/11. The only conclusion that I can draw is that these 'errors' and clues are how the no-planes evidence may have been manufactured .

If I am right then that knowledge already brings us a long way because if the no-planes scenario is a complete fake then real planes did fly complete and undistorted and without losing any apparent speed through the heavy steel and concrete of the perimeter walls of the Twin Towers. That would be 100% impossible unless the steel columns in the walls and the floorslabs in the areas of impact had been specially prepared and weakened in advance somehow.

The flashes inside the buildings that we spoke about appear to me to indicate that the planes are hitting the building with absolute pinpoint precision which in turn means that the area of impact that needed preparation may have been relatively small. It would also certainly mean that the planes were under remote guidance. A human pilot could never be relied upon to achieve that level of accuracy Indeed at that speed even a tiny error from the computer would have seen the plane missing the Tower.and ploughing into the ground.

Think about it. Find any piece of no-planes evidence that could not have been manufactured in the scenario I describe.

Also think about the fact that if there was no no-planes theory people would have long ago been looking much much harder into how on Earth a plane that weighed just one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building could have flown undistorted through the heavy steel wall as though you could stick your hand seamlessly into a mirror.
Click to expand...

This is sarcasm right? :boggled:
 
T.A.M. said:
sadly, no. You missed bill, who has recently returned.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I'd rather be bonked on the head than... well you get the idea...
bonk1.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom