A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

[T.A.M.]

exactly SDC. It is testimony from the person in question, the one who was "Standing 100 feet away" so it is not hearsay. As far as sourcing goes, the source is the person in question, which Mark has stated, so he has stated his source.

Now RedIbis, can you admit that this is the case, whether you believe Mark or not, and move on?

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

exactly SDC. It is testimony from the person in question, the one who was "Standing 100 feet away" so it is not hearsay. As far as sourcing goes, the source is the person in question, which Mark has stated, so he has stated his source.

Just as a comment in support of this, it's not uncommon in a scientific paper to cite a reference of the form "J. Smith, private communication". It allows the author, for example, to cite work that has yet to be published. Of course, it's possible that the cited work may not ever be published and thus itself open to scrutiny, but the reader is able to see this and is therefore able to apply a suitably reduced weight to the reference, which is not the same as discounting it altogether.

Dave

 

[Gravy]

Just as a comment in support of this, it's not uncommon in a scientific paper to cite a reference of the form "J. Smith, private communication". It allows the author, for example, to cite work that has yet to be published. Of course, it's possible that the cited work may not ever be published and thus itself open to scrutiny, but the reader is able to see this and is therefore able to apply a suitably reduced weight to the reference, which is not the same as discounting it altogether.

Dave

True, but whether Rodriguez was 50 feet or 300 feet from the building has no bearing on the claims I examine in the paper. As far as the narrative goes, it only matters that he narrowly escaped with his life. Unable to read past the first page, RedIbis has chosen a completely inconsequential part of Rodriguez's story to question. Again, RedIbis should ask Rodriguez if he requires further details about that.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Is there any chance of tracing the route the fuel/fireball took to the basement as far down as B-4 using some graphics, blueprints and layouts of the elevator shafts and matching those with the witnesses and survivors accounts and their position?

Also, any chance or explanation of how the structure and people (Stanley e.g.)nearest the impact survived the initial explosion, but parts of the building farthest away from impact were damaged and destroyed? You know that whole over pressure damage thing...

 

[GreNME]

Not to get into too much detail without having names of papers and page numbers to point out (I'm at work), but how many times can one go over the words of a person's stated eyewitness report before the fallability of eyewitness testimony in the face of forensic evidence is taken into account? It seems to me that something common among the "alternative" theory movement is the attempt to come at the incident as a criminal investigation, but with focus shifting between actual evidence, speculative evidence, and often an inordinate amount of currency lent to eyewitness account without first establishing frame of mind, contextual understanding, and perspective.

I ask this mostly because in all the study I have done on the issue, one of the things I have tried to avoid is dissecting eyewitness testimony to the semantical level of individual words, phrases, and (if any) sworn testimony. The reason I've veered away from this is based on the idea that I don't want my opinion based in one direction or the other on the testimony of people who would naturally have been under extreme distress at the time everything happened, and have undeniably had that color their hindsight of the events to whatever degree it has.

If this belongs in its own thread, let me know. I am bringing it up here mostly because of its relevance to Willy Rodriquez as allegedly being a witness of some kind of higher credibility, despite his prior association with the buildings (his job), the obvious environmental stressors during the crisis (I mean, how do you react in a situation like that?), and most importantly the events and associations he has gone on to forge and strengthen since the time of the accident (because your hindsight of something does change depending on how you describe it and how much you repeat it).

 

[RedIbis]

Let's refocus because this is starting to become contentious.

I read Gravy's paper, found a claim on the first page and asked for the source.

Even a personal interview can be cited correctly. That's all I'm asking for.

For a subject as complex as this, the difference between 100 or 300 feet is quite significant.

When and where did Rodriguez say that he was 100ft from the tower when it collapsed.

Why is this question construed as invalid, insignificant or wothy of being ignored?

I'm trying to be calm and honest here, guys.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Let's refocus because this is starting to become contentious.

I read Gravy's paper, found a claim on the first page and asked for the source.

Even a personal interview can be cited correctly. That's all I'm asking for.

For a subject as complex as this, the difference between 100 or 300 feet is quite significant.

When and where did Rodriguez say that he was 100ft from the tower when it collapsed.

Why is this question construed as invalid, insignificant or wothy of being ignored?

I'm trying to be calm and honest here, guys.

Do any conclusions, or analyses, in the paper rely upon the quote in question?

 

[T.A.M.]

GreNME:

Welcome to the forum.

RedIbis:

I have no problem with proper citation, if the information is deemed to be of consequence.
TAM

 

[Gravy]

Do any conclusions, or analyses, in the paper rely upon the quote in question?

Ooh! Ooh! Call on me!

Oh, that's right. I already answered that.

RedIbis is welcome to take up the study of the many, many statements in my paper for which I do not provide citations beyond Rodriguez's word, such as that Rodriguez's name is Rodriguez, that he was with 14 other people in the basement office, that he had a show on New Jersey public television, that he made it to the 39th floor and not the 40th, and on, and on. Think of all the details it's possible to get lost in while avoiding addressing the claims!

 

[RedIbis]

Ooh! Ooh! Call on me!

Oh, that's right. I already answered that.

RedIbis is welcome to take up the study of the many, many statements in my paper for which I do not provide citations beyond Rodriguez's word, such as that Rodriguez's name is Rodriguez, that he was with 14 other people in the basement office, that he had a show on New Jersey public television, that he made it to the 39th floor and not the 40th, and on, and on. Think of all the details it's possible to get lost in while avoiding addressing the claims!

So Rodriguez's location when the tower collapses is inconsequential and does not require a source?

You said Rodriguez said it, where? when? and to whom?

Other than your response of "no." It would be helpful if you could address the slight problem of how much time passes from the explosion which injures Mr. Griffith and the fireball observed in the elevator shaft. As I've explained, these cannot be from the same event and therefore, undermines the premise of your paper.

I'm not going to engage in the somewhat surreal and juvenile discussion by quotation due to ignore. I choose to address you directly.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ooh! Ooh! Call on me!

Oh, that's right. I already answered that.

RedIbis is welcome to take up the study of the many, many statements in my paper for which I do not provide citations beyond Rodriguez's word, such as that Rodriguez's name is Rodriguez, that he was with 14 other people in the basement office, that he had a show on New Jersey public television, that he made it to the 39th floor and not the 40th, and on, and on. Think of all the details it's possible to get lost in while avoiding addressing the claims!

RedIbis, do you agree with Gravy's assertion that no conclusions are drawn from, nor any arguments built upon, the quote under discussion?

If your answer is, "yes," then any further discussion regarding this quote is a red herring and is irrelevant to the original premise of this thread.

If you answer is, "no," then please provide a specific citation from Gravy's paper and explain, in a logically consistent manner, why the citation counters Gravy's claim that no conclusions are drawn from, nor arguments built upon, the quote.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, do you agree with Gravy's assertion that no conclusions are drawn from, nor any arguments built upon, the quote under discussion?

If your answer is, "yes," then any further discussion regarding this quote is a red herring and is irrelevant to the original premise of this thread.

If you answer is, "no," then please provide a specific citation from Gravy's paper and explain, in a logically consistent manner, why the citation counters Gravy's claim that no conclusions are drawn from, nor arguments built upon, the quote.

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.

Even a public access television show can be cited as a source. It simply requires the date, time, and TV channel of the original broadcast, and a timestamp for the quote would be even more specific.

I would also like to add that what you might think of as insignificant, if uncited and unsourced, is very significant and will put in doubt any number of claims if they, too, have no source or citation, especially papers that are subjective, presumptuous, and based on conjecture.

 

[Disbelief]

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.

Even a public access television show can be cited as a source. It simply requires the date, time, and TV channel of the original broadcast, and a timestamp for the quote would be even more specific.

I would also like to add that what you might think of as insignificant, if uncited and unsourced, is very significant and will put in doubt any number of claims if they, too, have no source or citation, especially papers that are subjective, presumptuous, and based on conjecture.

Doesn't this describe the TM? All the truth sites do is source each other, like some cyber circe jerk.

 

[DavidJames]

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.

Even a public access television show can be cited as a source. It simply requires the date, time, and TV channel of the original broadcast, and a timestamp for the quote would be even more specific.

I would also like to add that what you might think of as insignificant, if uncited and unsourced, is very significant and will put in doubt any number of claims if they, too, have no source or citation, especially papers that are subjective, presumptuous, and based on conjecture.

Nice job, you completely avoided answering the question. You couldn't answer a simple yes or no question.

Can't say I'm shocked though.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.

Even a public access television show can be cited as a source. It simply requires the date, time, and TV channel of the original broadcast, and a timestamp for the quote would be even more specific.

I would also like to add that what you might think of as insignificant, if uncited and unsourced, is very significant and will put in doubt any number of claims if they, too, have no source or citation, especially papers that are subjective, presumptuous, and based on conjecture.

This does not answer my simple "yes/no" question.

Are there any conclusions drawn from, or arguments based upon, the quote in question? yes or no?

 

[Norseman]

Other than your response of "no." It would be helpful if you could address the slight problem of how much time passes from the explosion which injures Mr. Griffith and the fireball observed in the elevator shaft. As I've explained, these cannot be from the same event and therefore, undermines the premise of your paper.

RedIbis, the injuries to Mr Griffith and the elevator car was caused by the abrupt braking of the falling elevator. The elevator fell because the impact of Flight 11 cut the elevator cables up in the impact zone.

The emergency brakes caught after 15 or 16 floors. The imploding elevator door crushed Arturo's right knee and broke the tibia below it. His passenger escaped injury.

USA Today

Arturo's elevator would drop in the same instant that the cable was cut. While the fireball of burning fuel would need more time to travel all the way down to the basement from the impact zone. Something in order of 30 seconds, as discussed here. Plenty of time for coworkers to jump into the elevator to rescue Arturo and Marlene Cruz before the fireball arrived.

Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.

http://911digitalarchive.org/parser.php?object_id=514

Here is Rodriguez's account to CNN on 11 september 2001:

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body.

CNN Transcipt

The first rumble fits with falling elevator cars. The second rumble fits with fuel fireballs coming down the elevator shafts from the impact zone.

Actually you find all this in Gravy's very excellent paper here.

The only tiny little issue I have with that paper is that Gravy speculates that the smoke Arturo describes, after the elevator car halted, was from the impact zone. My take on it, is that the smoke probably was generated by extreme friction heat from the breaking device. In addition we have to assume that the wind from the falling elevator must have stirred up years of dust inside the elevator shaft.

RedIbis, the conclusion is that Arturo Griffith's story supports Gravy's paper very well indeed. And it also fits with the account Rodriguez's gave to CNN on September 11th 2001 perfectly. But it does not support Rodriguez's later versions of his story. I understand very well why Gravy has put you on ignore.

 

[RedIbis]

This does not answer my simple "yes/no" question.

Are there any conclusions drawn from, or arguments based upon, the quote in question? yes or no?

There are many conclusions I might draw from the fact that Gravy does not source his contention that Rodriguez was about a hundred feet from the tower when it collapsed.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There are many conclusions I might draw from the fact that Gravy does not source his contention that Rodriguez was about a hundred feet from the tower when it collapsed.

Conclusions drawn in the paper, not from the paper. Stop being deliberately obtuse and answer the question.

 

[WildCat]

There are many conclusions I might draw from the fact that Gravy does not source his contention that Rodriguez was about a hundred feet from the tower when it collapsed.

Run away RedIbis, run boy! And IGNORE THE QUESTION, because the answer makes you look bad!

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, the conclusion is that Arturo Griffith's story supports Gravy's paper very well indeed. And it also fits with the account Rodriguez's gave to CNN on September 11th 2001 perfectly. But it does not support Rodriguez's later versions of his story. I understand very well why Gravy has put you on ignore.

Those are some very slow "fireballs."

Please review the amount of things which occur before the appearance of the fireball in the elevator.

"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."

And you're trying to tell me, and I suppose what Gravy is trying to tell Rodriguez, is that this all happens before the fireball in the elevator shaft.

In fact, they still had to go back and get another woman first.

Those are some very slow magic, I mean, fuel fireballs.

And this is all premised on the tremendous assumption that the fuel could even travel downwards at least 95 floors.

Forgive my skepticism.