9/11 Commission records unsealed

[MikeW]

Thanks, Wildy. I'm just thinking that a common truther theme is "there's no evidence the supposed hijackers were even on the planes", so presumably having them listed as boarding the aircraft does something to counter that. Although I guess they'll just move on to "but the lists might be faked", or maybe "sure, someone boarded the plane under those names, but it's not yet proven who they really were".

 

[Wildy]

Thanks, Wildy. I'm just thinking that a common truther theme is "there's no evidence the supposed hijackers were even on the planes", so presumably having them listed as boarding the aircraft does something to counter that. Although I guess they'll just move on to "but the lists might be faked", or maybe "sure, someone boarded the plane under those names, but it's not yet proven who they really were".

Of course they will, they'll do everything they can to keep their delusions alive.

 

[T.A.M.]

Ah, I forgot to point out a couple of things that the truthers might take from this.

The cover note from the tape says Glick's mother-in-law called at 9:20, which is before the hijack happened. It looks like a mistake because they also report Glick saying he'd been in the air for an hour (the plane took off at 8:42), and early on someone says "they just crashed one into the Pentagon", but truthers love their "anomalies" and this will be another one for the list.

Someone later says "there's not much of the World Trade Center left to crash into". This is before they're talking of the attacks, and will play to the argument that the first WTC collapse must have happened by now, so this contradicts the Commission timeline where this happened after the Flight 93 counter-attack begins, not before. (Sounds tenuous, I know, but there really are people who argue this.)

Stupid USG run FBI, leaving all those darn clues around, blowing the cover of the NWO on this one. Must discipline those stupid peoplez!!!

TAM

 

[MikeW]

Stupid USG run FBI, leaving all those darn clues around, blowing the cover of the NWO on this one. Must discipline those stupid peoplez!!!

TAM

But they'd have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those pesky kids!

 

[Pardalis]

RedIbis, I would like for you to answer this simple question:

He also talks about an earthquake, was there an earthquake that day?

 

[johnny karate]

Call it what you want, but I'd like to see Rodriguez saying it himself.

What does it matter to you what he actually said? You'll just take his words and twist them to suit your agenda. Or just outright lie about what he said. You've done it before. I'm sure you'd do it again.

 

[johnny karate]

RedIbis, I would like for you to answer this simple question:

He also talks about an earthquake, was there an earthquake that day?

Oh, he definitely believes there was an earthquake. We know this because RedIbis has already spelled out his philosophy when examining witness testimony:

Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, 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.

Unless of course RedIbis is just a hypocrite who only applies this standard when it serves his agenda. But considering the unflagging integrity he has exhibited on this forum, I would find that very difficult to believe.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, I would like for you to answer this simple question:

How long do you think it took Rodriguez to realize that it wasn't an earthquake, nor was it a generator that caused the explosions he reports?

 

[Pardalis]

How long do you think it took Rodriguez to realize that it wasn't an earthquake, nor was it a generator that caused the explosions he reports?

One could ask the same question about the people reporting "bombs", since there was never found any evidence of bombs.

Since you are clearly able to make that reasoning, why don't you apply the same reasoning for both claims, the one of the "earthquake" and the ones of "bombs", that the people were using the words unspecifically, to describe more a feeling than a state of fact?

 

[RedIbis]

One could ask the same question about the people reporting "bombs", since there was never found any evidence of bombs.

Since you are clearly able to make that reasoning, why don't you apply the same reasoning for both claims, the one of the "earthquake" and the ones of "bombs", that the people were using the words unspecifically, to describe more a feeling than a state of fact?

There is a huge difference. Rodriguez and others in the sub basement levels were experiencing and reporting explosions below and above them. Other than the initial explosion that Rodriguez experiences below him, he did not think it was a generator for obvious reasons.

 

[Pardalis]

There is a huge difference. Rodriguez and others in the sub basement levels were experiencing and reporting explosions below and above them.

Could be reverberation, could be anything. They had no way to tell one way or the other.

Oh, and you didn't address my point.

 

[johnny karate]

How long do you think it took Rodriguez to realize that it wasn't an earthquake, nor was it a generator that caused the explosions he reports?

Irrelevant.

According to you:

How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

Therefore, we must conclude that his initial impressions of a generator explosion and an earthquake are the correct ones.

 

[johnny karate]

There is a huge difference. Rodriguez and others in the sub basement levels were experiencing and reporting explosions below and above them. Other than the initial explosion that Rodriguez experiences below him, he did not think it was a generator for obvious reasons.

Nor did Rodriguez or anyone else initially attribute what they experienced to anything suspicious or otherwise contradictory to what would be the official version of events. Therefore, applying what you have taught us about proper investigation techniques:

Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, 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.

any suspicions that might have arisen after given time to consider their experiences is rendered moot.

 

[RedIbis]

Nor did Rodriguez or anyone else initially attribute what they experienced to anything suspicious or otherwise contradictory to what would be the official version of events.

True, since there were no official explanations at the time. Impressive analysis.

 

[stateofgrace]

Nor did Rodriguez or anyone else initially attribute what they experienced to anything suspicious or otherwise contradictory to what would be the official version of events. Therefore, applying what you have taught us about proper investigation techniques:

Originally Posted by RedIbis
Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, 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

any suspicions that might have arisen after given time to consider their experiences is rendered moot.

True, since there were no official explanations at the time. Impressive analysis.

Red you are fooling nobody by selective answering, why don't you answer the entire post? I have bolded your post and the really really important point you are trying to avoid.

Are you really a hypocrite?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Sigh.. another JREF thread attacking an American hero just to defend the fable of well documented liars.

 

[johnny karate]

True, since there were no official explanations at the time. Impressive analysis.

Your sarcasm is noted. And sadly misdirected:

Nor did Rodriguez or anyone else initially attribute what they experienced to anything suspicious or otherwise contradictory to what would be the official version of events. Therefore, applying what you have taught us about proper investigation techniques

I'm not sure what's more pathetic. Your attempt to dodge an issue with snarky one-liners, or the fact that you can't even manage a snarky one-liner without falling on your face.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you really a hypocrite?

Well Redibis does have a history of saying that the columbia incident despite being a first time in history was possible because quote: "Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"", yet he doesn't apply such an analysis to construction and design. You should know his routine by now

 

[LashL]

Ahem. Please respond to post 232, RedIbis.

Rodriguez severed that legal relationship sometime after the suit was filed, although I don't know why exactly, but I do know that Rodriguez was unhappy with the representation.

Rodriguez didn't sever his relationship with Berg until Rodriguez's lawsuit was dismissed by the court in the summer of 2006.

Call it what you want, but I'd like to see Rodriguez saying it himself. Perhaps he has, I've just noticed that he is careful to distance himself from conspiracy theories or that what he experienced were pre-planted explosives.

Read Rodriguez's sworn affidavit of January 5, 2006. He certainly says that he thinks the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks.

 

[Walter Ego]

My take on Willie Rodriquez is that he only turned to “truth” when his celebrity following the events of 9/11 began to wane.

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: "I knew how to manipulate the media."

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. It was only when that notoriety began to fade that he became a 9/11 truther.