Challenge to William Rodriguez

If you have already replied to this please tell me where i can find the answer, but Mr. William Rodriquez, can you tell us exactly what you heard on 9/11...I know your story but I was wondering when you heard the first blast (meaning did you notice the time on your watch when you heard it?). Where do you think it was in relation to you? How do you know it was before the plane hit? Was the guy that was burned (skill peeling off) hurting from the bomb below you or from a possible fireball in the elevator shaft?

thanks for your time and response!
 
Pardalis said:
I'm curious, has anyone ever tried to file a lawsuit against Al Qaeda?
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3085482.stm

In late 2003 Judge Garzon compiled a 692-page indictment which called for the arrest of 35 men, including Osama Bin Laden, for their alleged membership of a terrorist group. The number of suspects was later increased to 41.

In 2005 24 faced justice in Madrid, in Europe's biggest trial of alleged al-Qaeda operatives.

Eighteen were found guilty of belonging to an al-Qaeda cell and sentenced to long prison terms.

These included the suspected leader of the group, Syrian-born businessman Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, who was found guilty of helping to organise the 9/11 attacks in the US. Six defendants were acquitted.
Click to expand...
 
israelside said:
If you have already replied to this please tell me where i can find the answer, but Mr. William Rodriquez, can you tell us exactly what you heard on 9/11...I know your story but I was wondering when you heard the first blast
Click to expand...

He heard a noise. Your leading question is on of the reasons he really doesn't want to talk.

Was the guy that was burned (skill peeling off) hurting from the bomb below you or from a possible fireball in the elevator shaft?
Click to expand...
Bomb below? You decided so what is with your ingenuine questions? And besides your question about Felipe David is leading in that it presupposes that Rodriguez either saw a bomb or fireball. Why are you trying to do exactly what Rodriguez just complained about?
 
hurdygurdy said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3085482.stm
Click to expand...

For the record, that was not a lawsuit against Al Qaeda. Rather, it was criminal indictments against named individuals relating to their membership in a terrorist group (in this case, Al Qaeda). As I said above, Al Qaeda is not a legal entity and, therefore, lacks the capacity to sue or be sued.

Similarly, "the Mafia" lacks capacity to sue or be sued because "the Mafia" is not a legal entity. But individuals can certainly be prosecuted criminally for being members of an "organized crime" group (such as "the Mafia") if the criminal law in the relevant jurisdiction includes such provisions.

[/derail]

I would really like to see William's response to the posts above about his claims and the court documents that do not bear out his claims - preferably by way of him posting himself rather than sending emails to others to post for him (what's up with that?) - so I don't want to derail this thread any further if it can be avoided.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
For the record, that was not a lawsuit against Al Qaeda. Rather, it was criminal indictments against named individuals relating to their membership in a terrorist group (in this case, Al Qaeda). As I said above, Al Qaeda is not a legal entity and, therefore, lacks the capacity to sue or be sued.

Similarly, "the Mafia" lacks capacity to sue or be sued because "the Mafia" is not a legal entity. But individuals can certainly be prosecuted criminally for being members of an "organized crime" group (such as "the Mafia") if the criminal law in the relevant jurisdiction includes such provisions.
Click to expand...
SHHHH...the Mafia doesn't exist.
 
~enigma~ said:
He heard a noise. Your leading question is on of the reasons he really doesn't want to talk.


Bomb below? You decided so what is with your ingenuine questions? And besides your question about Felipe David is leading in that it presupposes that Rodriguez either saw a bomb or fireball. Why are you trying to do exactly what Rodriguez just complained about?
Click to expand...

William states this in his presentation before the 9/11 group at the LA conference last year, did you see it? He says some guy came in with skin falling off. Why does that mean i have decided a bomb came from below? HE SAID IT DID, I asking where, what time etc. The only thing i am presupposing is the things Mr. Rodriguez said, that is a bomb blew off before any plane hit and it came beneath him...period! Sorry, I am not sure what he has complained about.

Enigma, why do you always want to debate, I am just asking a question and you just want to fight...not exactly a "friendly and lively" way to discuss issues of the day (which JREF stipulates in its user agreement, which they have brought against me). Hey JREF, why don't yal give Mr. Enigma here with a yellow card!
 
~enigma~ said:
He heard a noise. Your leading question is on of the reasons he really doesn't want to talk.


Bomb below? You decided so what is with your ingenuine questions? And besides your question about Felipe David is leading in that it presupposes that Rodriguez either saw a bomb or fireball. Why are you trying to do exactly what Rodriguez just complained about?
Click to expand...

Easy there, enigma. Those were not "leading questions" in light of the various stories that Wiliam Rodriguez has published over the past five and a half years, of which many people here are well aware (Note: I am not saying that the troofer who posted the question is well aware of the many versions of events Rodriguez has given over the past 5.5 years, but that many posters here are.]

Evidence, please, that the poster's "leading question is on[e] of the reasons [Rodriguez] really doesn't want to talk".

The first question by the poster above is not leading at all. The second is technically leading, at most, if one ignores everything that Rodriguez has said over the years and if one pretends that the question is asked in a vacuum. If an objection were made to it in court, for instance, the objection would either be over-ruled quickly by simple reference to Rodriguez' other statements, or, at worst, the court would require it to be reworded slightly, and then would compel Mr. Rodriguez to answer it.

In addition, given that the question was posed by [ETA: someone who appears to be] a truther, I suspect he did not intend the question to be read the literal way in which you interpreted it.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Easy there, enigma. Those were not "leading questions" in light of the various stories that Wiliam Rodriguez has published over the past five and a half years, of which many people here are well aware (Note: I am not saying that the troofer who posted the question is well aware of the many versions of events Rodriguez has given over the past 5.5 years, but that many posters here are.]

Evidence, please, that the poster's "leading question is on[e] of the reasons [Rodriguez] really doesn't want to talk".

The first question by the poster above is not leading at all. The second is technically leading, at most, if one ignores everything that Rodriguez has said over the years and if one pretends that the question is asked in a vacuum. If an objection were made to it in court, for instance, the objection would either be over-ruled quickly by simple reference to Rodriguez' other statements, or, at worst, the court would require it to be reworded slightly, and then would compel Mr. Rodriguez to answer it.

In addition, given that the question was posed by a truther, I suspect he did not intend the question to be read the literal way in which you interpreted it.
Click to expand...
LashL.

Rodriguez said he heard a noise...an explosion. Calling it a blast or asking if it was a bomb is leading and frankly I can understand why Rodriguez wouldn't want to talk when people spin his statements to fit their agenda.
 
~enigma~ said:
<snip> what he wrote to LashL and myself.
Click to expand...

While Rodriguez ostensibly addressed something to me, via an email to you, he did not respond in any meaningful fashion whatsoever to my posts or the facts and evidence presented in those posts, and his purported response by proxy was wholly unsatisfactory, not to mention downright untrue.

Please see my post #159.
 
~enigma~ said:
LashL.

Rodriguez said he heard a noise...an explosion. Calling it a blast or asking if it was a bomb is leading and frankly I can understand why Rodriguez wouldn't want to talk when people spin his statements to fit their agenda.
Click to expand...



Mr. Rodriguez has explicitly stated, on numerous occasions, that it was indeed a bomb.

He cannot weasel out of that.

-Gumboot
 
LashL said:
While Rodriguez ostensibly addressed something to me, via an email to you, he did not respond in any meaningful fashion whatsoever to my posts or the facts and evidence presented in those posts, and his purported response by proxy was wholly unsatisfactory, not to mention downright untrue.

Please see my post #159.
Click to expand...
What did I say that indicated anything about that post? You were saying that iS's questions were just questions and I said they were leading. Sort of like asking someone if they stopped beating their spouse. How do you answer? That has no bearing on your post.
 
~enigma~ said:
LashL.

Rodriguez said he heard a noise...an explosion. Calling it a blast or asking if it was a bomb is leading and frankly I can understand why Rodriguez wouldn't want to talk when people spin his statements to fit their agenda.
Click to expand...

He said he heard "splosion, splosion, splosion, splosion" etc. (the number of "splosions" he says he heard has increased over the years) and he has singlehandedly fed the troofers' "bombs in the basement" conspiracy theory without ever objecting to them citing him as the source of that CT for all these years. He said repeatedly in his lawsuit and in his sworn affidavits as recently as 2006 that there were bombs in the sub-basements.

The question, as asked, was not a leading question, except technically, as I set out above.

You are right that someone is spinning here all right, but in this case, it isn't the troofer poster that you're arguing with - it's Rodriguez.
 
LashL said:
While Rodriguez ostensibly addressed something to me, via an email to you, he did not respond in any meaningful fashion whatsoever to my posts or the facts and evidence presented in those posts, and his purported response by proxy was wholly unsatisfactory, not to mention downright untrue.

Please see my post #159.
Click to expand...

So really he didn't provide yal with any meaningful information at all? He needs to agree to an interview with a "non truther" or whatever that means, as if a non truther holds the truth lol. Labels are unfair for the most part. He did go to the conference in LA, said his story and we have no reason to not believe it right? or has he posted anything to you all to refute his claims made at the LA conference?? It's on youtube!
 
LashL said:
He said he heard "splosion, splosion, splosion, splosion" etc. (the number of "splosions" he says he heard has increased over the years) and he has singlehandedly fed the troofers' "bombs in the basement" conspiracy theory without ever objecting to them citing him as the source of that CT for all these years. He said repeatedly in his lawsuit and in his sworn affidavits as recently as 2006 that there were bombs in the sub-basements.

The question, as asked, was not a leading question, except technically, as I set out above.

You are right that someone is spinning here all right, but in this case, it isn't the troofer poster that you're arguing with - it's Rodriguez.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute. If you said in an interview with whomever that you heard an esplosion and I turned around and claimed you admitted there was a bomb...I wouldn't be guilty of spinning a story?
 
LashL said:
He said he heard "splosion, splosion, splosion, splosion" etc. (the number of "splosions" he says he heard has increased over the years)
Click to expand...
Maybe the number increased because he says esplosion and the interviewer says bomb so he says esplosion again and again :)
 
~enigma~ said:
Wait a minute. If you said in an interview with whomever that you heard an esplosion and I turned around and claimed you admitted there was a bomb...I wouldn't be guilty of spinning a story?
Click to expand...

How often do things in basements "expload" without there being some sort of bomb involved? I guess a circuit could malfunction and cause a generator to blow up, but having it do that just moments before the worse event in US history is sorta odd, not very likely! Granted, it was BEFORE the plane hit. We do have to be careful not to try to muddle the water here by spinning this story he has said (at the LA conference, if it was his most honest account) to fit our own theory about 9/11!
 
~enigma~ said:
What part of don't address me didn't you understand?
Click to expand...

Can you just answer my question? Sorry it wasn't actually directed at you persay but to anyone who wants to respond. I am trying to keep the forum "lively" with critical thinking :) most of us can tell you pretty much forgot about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom