Challenge to William Rodriguez

Gravy said:
israelside, in a day or two I'll have a great deal of reading material for you that I think will clear up any doubts you may have about what happened in the elevator shafts and basements of the towers. I hope you can be patient until then.
Click to expand...

I know I can :)

Now I have something to look forward to over the next few days.
 
gumboot said:
Remember, there's a lot of explanations for sounds around the time of impact. There's the fireball from UA175, which came seconds after impact, and then there's dozens of explosions at various elevator shafts as the jet fuel exploded.

Is there any reason to think every single elevator explosion occurred at once? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
These are my thoughts exactly. It is well documented that there were fireballs in multiple elevator shafts, not just the freight elevator.
 
israelside said:
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!
Click to expand...
explosions <> explosives
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
I am completely exasperated with the constant equivocating of explosions, explosives and loud noises as exhibited some of the people that post here. What follows is a rant with the intent to provide edification on the matter.

Executive Summary
The use of "explosive" and "explosion" interchangeably in discussion is erroneous; and the use of "explosions" as evidence of "explosives" is fundamentally flawed.

Loud Noises (aka bangs, booms, cracks, explosions (heard but not seen) etc)
Q. What are loud noises?
A. Within the context of this post I will be defining loud noises as "Sound or a sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/noise (def. #1)

Explosions
Q. What are explosions?
A. Wikipedia defines ExplosionsWP as "a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in a violent manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion causes pressure waves in the local medium in which it occurs. Explosions are categorized as deflagrations if these waves are subsonic and detonations if they are supersonic (shock waves)."

Q. What are causes of explosions?
A. The Wikipedia article on ExplosionsWP lists a number of causes of explosions:
  • Chemical explosions
  • Nuclear explosions
  • Steam boiler explosions
  • Electrical explosions
  • Volcanic explosions
  • Astronomical event explosions and
  • Exploding animals
Explosives
Q. What are explosives?
A. Wikipedia defines ExplosivesWP as "a material that either is chemically or otherwise energetically unstable or produces a sudden expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion."

The Logic
Argument 1
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: An explosive is detonated;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true by definition of what an explosive does and is included in the definition of things that can cause explosions.
This is known as affirming the antecedent and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 2
P1: If there is an explosion, then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, it was heard as a loud noise.

This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true as, by definition, explosions create shock-waves. The shock-waves are heard and meet the criteria of being a loud noise.
This is known as affirming the antecedent and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 3
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Therefore, we would have to be able to say:
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: Only explosions can cause loud noises;
P3: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is clearly an untenable argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 4
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.

This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

This requirement means that for proponent of CD in the WTC to claim that witness reports of explosions are evidence of the use of explosives the following must be true:
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: Only explosives can cause explosions;
P3: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.

This clearly runs counter to the definition of what an explosion is, and is shown to not be true by the examples cited for causes of explosions that do not fall in to the category of explosives. Therefore, this is also an untenable argument.

What does this mean for discussion?
It means that...
  • ... if a witness reported hearing a loud noise and called it an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosion
  • ... if a witness reported seeing an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosive
  • ... the term "explosion" and "explosive" can not be used interchangeably
Click to expand...
 
I guess we won't see his Q & A, or his responds to Gravy then:

William Rodriguez @ LCF said:
That's it , I am cancelling my involvement with the JREF forum, they are downright insukting. Now they are even insulting my accent. I think that is very demeaning, but what the heck, they are better than us, isn't? Sad, very sad indeed. While I do not engage they can spin it anyway they want. At the end I will continue getting the word out. They even tried to use the Phil Berg case, even though it is known that I sent that case to the garbage dump.
Oh well, we both lost a good oportunity.

William -splosion- Rodriguez
Click to expand...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8351&view=findpost&p=13421256
 
It is a weak argument to label us all based on the word "splosion" of a few.

It says more about how he likely wanted an "easy out" of the debate/interview.

Many people here listened to him when he said he gave up on that Phil Berg suit, and encouraged him to do the interview so he could clear the air on this and the other areas of contention.

TAM:(
 
but I guess, seeing how he gave up on the Phil Berg suit, because he didn't believe the lies that were being thrown about within it, that "the word" he says he will continue to spread, will not include any of the claims made in that suit.

We shall see...we can only hope he is true to this.

TAM:)
 
ref said:
I guess we won't see his Q & A, or his responds to Gravy then:



http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8351&view=findpost&p=13421256
Click to expand...

It's quite obvious that he looks for any excuse to back out of a real discussion on the issues.

I'm not the least bit interested in what he has to say, anymore. I think it's quite obvious to me that he enjoys the attention he gets from the conspiracists, because not only is he a hero for rescuing people, but he's a "whistle blower". Hero x2 to them.

I don't think it will be too long, though- when the CD theories are abandoned for the death ray/mini nuke claims and Rodriguez will come crawling back to "us"- looking for that same attention.

The vast majority of people here were respectful and patient, even when Rodriguez was not. Although it's true that LashL was- in effect- mocking his accent, it's hardly a good enough excuse to close off all criticism and questioning.

That "us versus them" mentality that Rodriguez has is just more evidence that he's truly a conspiracist and defaults back to his home under the slightest scrutiny- looking for any possible escape from the tyranny of truth.

Again, although his actions on that day would be considered heroic by anyone- his subsequent actions, behavior, and blame (ie the lawsuit), have taken away any cause for me to look up at him. I believe a person should be judged by their actions... all their actions. Therefore, his actions were heroic (in and of themselves on that day), but he is no hero.

To rescue people and then turn around and blame them for the deaths of 3,000 people does not make a person a hero.
 
T.A.M. said:
but I guess, seeing how he gave up on the Phil Berg suit, because he didn't believe the lies that were being thrown about within it, that "the word" he says he will continue to spread, will not include any of the claims made in that suit.

We shall see...we can only hope he is true to this.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I think it's more accurate to say that he gave up on the Phil Berg suit after it was dismissed. Otherwise, if we're to believe him, it took him several years to read it...

I don't see why we should believe what he says at this point- he's outright refused to respond to any questions, and instead argued ad baculum about "us" as some kind of entity he opposes. He retreats back to the conspiracist who will certainly welcome him with open arms, instead of holding individuals accountable for what they say- he is terrified of being questioned.

How I've seen him act over the last few weeks- what I've seen him say- and what he's done in the past has really changed my mind on him, personally.

And, as others have said- he offers nothing to the scientific inquiry, anyway.
 
To be fair, It was uncalled for to make fun of ones accent. However, LashL can speak for himself as to whether this was his intent.

If Mr. Rodriguez still wishes to clear the air, there are alot of us here still willing to listen, and to help make it happen.

TAM:)
 
Totovader said:
I think it's more accurate to say that he gave up on the Phil Berg suit after it was dismissed. Otherwise, if we're to believe him, it took him several years to read it...

I don't see why we should believe what he says at this point- he's outright refused to respond to any questions, and instead argued ad baculum about "us" as some kind of entity he opposes. He retreats back to the conspiracist who will certainly welcome him with open arms, instead of holding individuals accountable for what they say- he is terrified of being questioned.

How I've seen him act over the last few weeks- what I've seen him say- and what he's done in the past has really changed my mind on him, personally.

And, as others have said- he offers nothing to the scientific inquiry, anyway.
Click to expand...


He is not a scientist, so he couldn't offer much really, to the science of the issue.

What he does do, though, is offer a story that has been cherry picked, quoted and misquoted. One that has had no end of speculation and mis-extrapolation used upon it, and for this reason, good or bad, confirming or disputing, I would like to hear it all from his own mouth in an unbiased, public interview.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
What he does do, though, is offer a story that has been cherry picked, quoted and misquoted. One that has had no end of speculation and mis-extrapolation used upon it, and for this reason, good or bad, confirming or disputing, I would like to hear it all from his own mouth in an unbiased, public interview.
Click to expand...


TAM, Here's a 50 minute presentation Mr Rodriguez gave, most of which is taken up by a detail narrative of his experiences that day. Maybe it will provide the answers you seek.

As much as my respect for him has evaporated (my sentiment is much like Totovader's at this point) the speech itself is excellent and his story is riveting.



-Gumboot
 
Gumboot:

Thank you. His story is extremely compelling. Noone can deny his courage, that is for sure.

At this point I think he is a courageous man who has been fed the snake oil.

I was hoping an inteview by Ron or mark, detailing the timing of all the things he mentions above, might help shed some light on the "issues" with the various explosions, etc...

TAM:)
 
edited for civility. Please try to make your point without resorting to insults.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Last edited by a moderator:
holy cow, an entire post deleted for civilty of posting reasons...I can't imagine what "civilized" worm must have said...lol

TAM:)

I noticed the little scarlet letter...I mean yellow card at the side there too...oh boy.
 
(not as a mod)
For what it's worth I don't see any mockery of accents in this thread. I don't consider the shortening of the word 'explosions' to 'splosions' to be insulting. When the point was first raised, there was confusion as to where that comment came from. Please try to refrain from knee-jerk reactions, and from using those reactions to be uncivil to each other.
 
chillzero said:
(not as a mod)
For what it's worth I don't see any mockery of accents in this thread. I don't consider the shortening of the word 'explosions' to 'splosions' to be insulting. When the point was first raised, there was confusion as to where that comment came from. Please try to refrain from knee-jerk reactions, and from using those reactions to be uncivil to each other.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt LashL meant the comment as a racial slur /accent mocking either, as it is not in keeping with his personality online. He is usually the opposite, calling for civility almost as much as I do...lol.

I think the "splosions" was probably more of a mock of the "urban" shortening of words, such as "Wazup" and "G" etc..., not a jab at hispanics or their accents. It may not even have been mocking at all.

IMO

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
holy cow, an entire post deleted for civilty of posting reasons...I can't imagine what "civilized" worm must have said...lol

TAM:)

I noticed the little scarlet letter...I mean yellow card at the side there too...oh boy.
Click to expand...


I was annoyed at the accent mocking that has given Rodriguez the excuse he wanted to avoid debating us.

I accept that I probably overreacted.
 
Ever since Darat's April 10th announcement, which I agree wholeheartedly with BTW, it seems like alot of folks(typically Truthers, but some regulars too) have had some sort of skin removal procedure which causes them take extreme offense to anything they perceive as remotely negative and consequently, complain loudly(see William Rea and Apollo20) about how the JREF forum is full of mean spirited insult mongers, bigots, NISTians or worse. I just am not seeing it - granted I don't read every post in every thread, but I've only seen maybe 10-15 posts I would've had to have modded since the announcement - and I've read through all the Willie Rodriguez threads..

Yesterday, after making a somewhat playful analogy comparing the stopping of Loose Change screenings with birth control being handed out in low-income area schools - I was labelled a bigot by TC329(which is an honor coming from him, all things considered). Now Lash gets called a bigot for "mocking" Willie's accent, which I didn't percieve as such when I browsed the thread earlier. Why has everyone become so sensitive since April 10th? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom