Rosie & Willie Rodriguez (Video)

[DavidJames]

Now you're clearly trolling.

Now?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

1. Stop it with the misrepresentation. I haven't claimed that a bomb went off in the basement, so I have no such burden to meet.

Oh, I'm sorry. You have the burden to prove an explosion took place in the basement.

2. Stop it with the misrepresentation. In the video, Rodriguez does not say he heard "a bomb going off," but an "explosion from below" which lifted him and others up. Moreover, this alleged explosion occurred before the plane crash.

Well then how would he have known that it took place before the crash? Again there is a burden of proof here. Did he make it a point to look at his watch or something before and after the "explosion (not a bomb)"?

3. Stop it with the misleading statements. The reason why others who allegedly experienced what he did didn't testify, is because they were never called to testify.

Again, eye witness testimony isn't really reliable. Secondly I cannot take testimony into consideration that was never made. Sorry.

4. Stop making me repeat myself: Are his claims true or false? Do you have evidence that they are false?

You choose to repeat yourself. The answer was very clear...YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. SO...THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE A POSITIVE IN THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE MAKING.

"Stop it" with the intellectual evasion and semantics. Also "stop it" with the "stop it".

 

[DavidJames]

You don't know me, so don't assume what I will or won't accept.

You have 409 posts in less then two weeks. All of them pushing 9/11 CT theories. You have exhibited zero ability to intelligently analyze evidence. You have posted astonishingly ignorant interpretations of of data. You have shown no ability to learn.

You are just like the dozens of other CTists who exhibit identical intellectually deficient analytic capabilities. You are an unremarkable, garden variety, 9/11 CTists. Don't know you? Ha, everyone knows you.

 

[radical_logic]

Oh, I'm sorry. You have the burden to prove an explosion took place in the basement.

Again, stop it with the misrepresentation. I never claimed that an explosion took place in the basement, so I have no such burden to meet.

Well then how would he have known that it took place before the crash?

One possibility: Using his senses, he heard and felt the explosion from below, and then heard the plane crash from above.

Again there is a burden of proof here. Did he make it a point to look at his watch or something before and after the "explosion (not a bomb)"?

Do you have surround sound? Ever take a stroll in the park? Are you seriously suggesting that it takes some specially trained ability to discriminate when one event occurs before another?

Again, eye witness testimony isn't really reliable.

Depends on the type of testimony, how many witnesses there were, etc. The fact that the claim is based on "eye witness testimony" isn't necessarily a problem.

Secondly I cannot take testimony into consideration that was never made. Sorry.

So admit that you don't know the answer. I will: I DON'T KNOW IF HIS CLAIMS ARE TRUE OR FALSE, SO I WILL NOT DISSMISS THEM OUT OF HAND. Do you agree? Yes or no?

You choose to repeat yourself. The answer was very clear...

Yes, the answer is clear: I don't know. Will you admit that you don't know either?

YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. SO...THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE A POSITIVE IN THE ARGUMENT YOU ARE MAKING.

Except that I'm not putting forth an assertion to be proved.

"Stop it" with the intellectual evasion and semantics. Also "stop it" with the "stop it".

Actually, unless you have evidence one way or the other, "I don't know" is the only intellectually honest answer. Also, you really were misrepresenting my views, so I felt justified with the "stop it" act.

 

[radical_logic]

You have 409 posts in less then two weeks. All of them pushing 9/11 CT theories.

Your second statement is false, and thus it's easy to dismiss the rest of what you say. Show me one 9/11 "theory" I was pushing. SHOW IT. Don't just assert.

 

[Pardalis]

2. Stop it with the misrepresentation. In the video, Rodriguez does not say he heard "a bomb going off," but an "explosion from below" which lifted him and others up. Moreover, this alleged explosion occurred before the plane crash.

One possibility: Using his senses, he heard and felt the explosion from below, and then heard the plane crash from above.

Again, the explosion that lifted them off the ground was probably the plane impact. A Boeing 767 plowing through the building at high speed is probably what did that. A lot of people reported being shook hard when the planes hit.

The explosion he heard after was probably the elevators falling to the ground or the jet fuel coming down. That explosion didn't make them levitate, or at least he didn't mention it. Also, it's right after that explosion that he witnessed people coming out of the elevators burnt, so that would be in direct causation.

For some reason he's trying to retrofit his recollections into his conspiracy narrative.

Again, I don't expect you to take this into consideration, so I'll leave you to your incessant ramblings.

 

[radical_logic]

You have 409 posts in less then two weeks. All of them pushing 9/11 CT theories. You have exhibited zero ability to intelligently analyze evidence.

Since I have over 400 + posts, it shouldn't be hard to identify the particular "9/11 CT theory" I'm accused of "pushing" these past two weeks--that is, unless you have a serious definciency to intellgently analyze simple written data.

 

[radical_logic]

Again, the explosion that lifted them off the ground was probably the plane impact.

Again, on what basis do you dismiss his claim (and the alleged testimony of others who say the same) that an explosion below him occurred before the plane crash?

 

[Pardalis]

Again, on what basis do you dismiss his claim (and the alleged testimony of others who say the same) that an explosion below him occurred before the plane crash?

I just told you less than a minute ago. Memory is highly unreliable and malleable. Witnesses always, and often unintentionally, try to fit their memories with what they think they know what happened.

Also, besides Rodriguez, you don't have other testimonies of a terrific explosion before the plane crash, or what is alleged to be before the plane crash.

 

[radical_logic]

I just told you less than a minute ago. Memory is highly unreliable and malleable. Witnesses always, and often unintentionally, try to fit their memories with what they think they know what happened.

Also, besides Rodriguez, you don't have other testimonies of a terrific explosion before the plane crash, or what is alleged to be before the plane crash.

1. Yes you do. According to Rodriguez, there are other witnesses who experienced the same event, but were never called to testify.

2. The whole "memory is highly unreliable and malleable" thing is nothing but a cop out--for you can use that excuse to dismiss out of hand any eye-witness claim.

 

[WildCat]

Since Willie's basement explosion also blew out the WTC lobby there should be plenty of witnesses on the street (who could also hear and see the plane hit) who noticed this happened before the plane hit.

And yet, it's only Willie who claims this. The guy who couldn't see and hear when the plane hit.

 

[radical_logic]

And yet, it's only Willie who claims this.

Stop it with the misrepresentation: There are, according to Rodriguez, other witnesses who experienced the same event but were never called to testify. Hence it's not suprising that it's "only" Willie who claims this.

 

[radical_logic]

Will you people admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

1. Yes you do. According to Rodriguez, there are other witnesses who experienced the same event, but were never called to testify.

And hence their testimony can not be taken into consideration because it never took place. We cannot evaluate that which is not present, present these people and their testimony and then a discussion can take place. You are presenting non-evidence as evidence and it doesn't work that way.

2. The whole "memory is highly unreliable and malleable" thing is nothing but a cop out--for you can use that excuse to dismiss out of hand any eye-witness claim.

No that is fact given the numerous studies done on the subject of eye witness testimony, and the belief in the infallibility of eye witness testimony is the reason there are so many people being released from prison due to DNA evidence being introduced in their defense.

STILL...we are only talking about one person's testimony.

 

[Pardalis]

1. According to Rodriguez, there are other witnesses who experienced the same event, but were never called to testify.

As fullflavormenthol told you a minute ago, we can't determine that if these witnesses never spoke out. If these testimonies don't exist we don't know if that's true. These witnesses so far exist in Rodriguez' imagination.

This is exactly what fullflavormenthol just told you.

Do you even read the responses you get?

The whole "memory is highly unreliable and malleable" thing is nothing but a cop out--for you can use that excuse to dismiss out of hand any eye-witness claim.

No, this is not a cop-out, it's a rational explanation. Ask any cop or first responders, first witness accounts are never accurate, and they almost never correlate exactly with each other. They take their testimonies and try to see which ones fit the most together, and that'll be the truth, or at least a good approximation of what happened. The rest is dismissed, not because the people have lied, but because people remember incorrectly, especially when it's about a surprise stressful event nobody saw coming.

Let me try to explain this to you one more time, then I'm through.

Rodriguez was going through his normal routine when a big explosion which lifted him off the ground shook the entire building. He thinks it came from downstairs because the whole building shook. you got to take into consideration reverberation, and the fact that when the plane struck, the entire structure was shaken, to its very foundations. He was near the ground, which is what absorbed the shock.

Also, he couldn't have known at the time it was a plane that crashed, how could he have possibly known that? He figured out it was a plane that crashed into the building much later, like everybody else, well after he heard the noise. So this means he can't know for sure when exactly the plane struck, because he didn't know a plane struck until much later. This event was a complete shock, a total surprise, he couldn' thave known exactly what was happening. He remembered, and assembled his memories into a coherent narrative (what all people instinctively do) after the facts. Also, he couldn't have looked at his watch, because that's not the normal reflex one has after hearing an explosion to check one's watch. People always approximate the time an event occured, because usually people don't think to look at their watches when a shocking event occurs. His memories, and testimonies, are an afterthought.

And as I said in my post above, a deflagration that shakes an entire foundation is more likely to have been the Boeing 767 crashing into the tower. that would be consistent with the shock a building would endure.

The second explosion seems less tremendous, which would seem to indicate it's the elevators falling down or the jet fuel coming down the shafts, since it came after the initial bang, and that's when people came out of the elevators with their skins falling off their arms.

Now if you can't and won't at least acknowledge this rational explanation, and keep to your same questions without addressing these points, the points I have made in my previous posts and the points other posters have made then there is absolutely no reason to keep entertaining your silly games.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Now if you can't and won't at least acknowledge this rational explanation, and keep to your same questions without addressing these points, the points I have made in my previous posts and the points other posters have made then there is absolutely no reason to keep entertaining your silly games.

I think this is the best course to take. It is the classic "Prove the Negative" demand, and then taking the inabilty to prove a negative as proof of ones point. Like you wrote, ten pages later this thread will still be going with him refusing to acknowledge the fallacious framework his non-argument is based on. I say non-argument, because he shields himself by claiming that he isn't really claiming anything.

 

[TJM]

As fullflavormenthol told you a minute ago, we can't determine that if these witnesses never spoke out. If these testimonies don't exist we don't know if that's true. These witnesses so far exist in Rodriguez' imagination.

This is exactly what fullflavormenthol just told you.

Do you even read the responses you get?

No, this is not a cop-out, it's a rational explanation. Ask any cop or first responders, first witness accounts are never accurate, and they almost never correlate exactly with each other. they take their testimonies and try to see which ones fit the most together, and that'll be the truth, or at least a clue of what happened. The rest is dismissed, not because the people have lied, but because people remember incorrectly, especially when it's about a surprise stressful event nobody saw coming.

Let me try to explain this to you one more time, then I'm through.

Rodriguez was going through his normal routine when a big explosion which lifted him off the ground shook the entire building. He thinks it came from downstairs because the whole building shook. you got to take into consideration reverberation, and the fact that when the plane struck, the entire structure was shaken, to its very foundations. He was near the ground, which is what absorbed the shock.

Also, he couldn't have known at the time it was a plane that crashed, how could he have possibly known that? He figured out it was a plane that crashed into the building much later, like everybody else, well after he heard the noise. So this means he can't know for sure when exactly the plane struck, because he didn't know a plane struck until much later. This event was a complete shock, a total surprise, he couldn' thave known exactly what was happening. He remembered, and assembled his memories into a coherent narrative (what all people instinctively do) afte the facts. Also, he couldn't have looked at his watch, because that's not the normal reflex one has after hearing an explosion to check one's watch. People always approximate the time an event occured, because usually people don't think to look at their watches when a shcoking event occurs. His memories, and testimonies, are an afterthought.

And as I said in my post above, a deflagration that shakes an entire foundation is more likely to have been the Boeing 767 crashing into the tower. that would be consistent with the shock a building would endure.

The second explosion seems less tremendous, which would seem to indicate it's the elevators falling down or the jet fuel coming down the shafts, since it came after the initial band, and that's when people came out of the elevators with their skins falling off their arms.

Now if you can't and won't at least acknowledge this rational explanation, and keep to your same questions without addressing these points, the points I have made in my previous posts and the points other posters have made then there is absolutely no reason to keep entertaining your silly games.

Wow. I was just going to say that he's lied so much, it's hard to believe anything he's ever said, past or present. But what you said is waaaaaaaaay better.

 

[radical_logic]

And hence their testimony can not be taken into consideration because it never took place. We cannot evaluate that which is not present, present these people and their testimony and then a discussion can take place. You are presenting non-evidence as evidence and it doesn't work that way.



No that is fact given the numerous studies done on the subject of eye witness testimony, and the belief in the infallibility of eye witness testimony is the reason there are so many people being released from prison due to DNA evidence being introduced in their defense.

STILL...we are only talking about one person's testimony.

You are, again, misrepresenting what I say. So I'll just get ask my question and hope for a direct answer: Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?

 

[Pardalis]

I think this is the best course to take. It is the classic "Prove the Negative" demand, and then taking the inabilty to prove a negative as proof of ones point. Like you wrote, ten pages later this thread will still be going with him refusing to acknowledge the fallacious framework his non-argument is based on. I say non-argument, because he shields himself by claiming that he isn't really claiming anything.

Yeah, the old "agnostic" shtick. I'm afraid RedIbis played that one to death.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

You are, again, misrepresenting what I say. So I'll just get ask my question and hope for a direct answer: Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?

Merely claiming that I am misrepresenting what you said doesn't mean I am, stop misrepresenting me. Given that his claims don't fit with what we know, than I will say that he is merely mistaken. So I would say is claims are false because he is making claims to knowledge that he did not posses at the time.

Pardalis has covered this, but you seem to avoid his points. But, the agnostic nonsense is old.