Rosie & Willie Rodriguez (Video)

[radical_logic]

Merely claiming that I am misrepresenting what you said doesn't mean I am, stop misrepresenting me.

"You are presenting non-evidence as evidence and it doesn't work that way."

It's false that I was presenting non-evidence as evidence. Hence you misrepresented me, like you did before.

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.

This, of course, begs the question because you are assuming he's "mistaken" without any hard evidence. Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. Will you? Yes or no?

(btw, there is a point to my question - if you will simply answer it honestly, we can proceed).

 

[Pardalis]

How can Rodriguez tell apart a bomb explosion from a jumbo jet crashing into a building, when he was never before in any of those circumstances?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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?

No one dismisses his testimony, it's his speculation that is dismissed. It's not that people are dismissing him feeling an explosion below him, it's the baseless claims that they were bombs. It's him claiming that the explosion occured before the plane hit when he would have absolutely no way of seeing the plane hit from inside the basement that gets dismissed. Or perhaps you can present some evidence that shows how he could visually see the plane hit while in the basement of the building? Because all I see his him recalling sounds, which travel at different speeds through different materials and based on time which is ALWAYS distorted (hence in big events time always seems to slow down and things that are only a fraction of a second feel like minutes).

AND, there were 1000s and 1000s of people there who were part of the experience and they were not all asked to testify. So why should Willie's testimony be used and if the others had the same testimony, then what would be the point of redundant testimony?

 

[radical_logic]

How can Rodriguez tell apart a bomb explosion from a jumbo jet crashing into a building, when he was never before in any of those circumstances?

How can you objectively evaluate the validity of his claim when you misrepresent it? Point to where in the video he says he heard "a bomb?"

More importantly, will you answer my question? Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

 

[radical_logic]

No one dismisses his testimony, it's his speculation that is dismissed.

Will you admit, then, that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

 

[Pardalis]

One way I see Rodriguez' persistence in pushing for his view of what happened is that without that aura of conspiracy around his testimony, he would be like all the other heroes of 9/11: he would of course be remembered for his bravery, but it would fade in time and not be mentioned outside the anniversary of the events or in documentaries. It's unfortunate but it's a fact of life. People move on.

The fact that his testimony differs from everyone else's is exactly what's keeping him in the spotlight. He's found a loophole to allow him to keep telling his story without people saying:" OK, we've heard it already, you're a hero, we got it, congrats... can we go now?" Another hero wouldn't go around the world to keep telling his story, make "motivational speeches", another hero would gladly move on. The conspiracy is the angle he found for his story to be kept alive.

At least IMO.

BTW, this is not in response to Radical Logic, there are other things to be said in this thread.

 

[Pardalis]

How can you objectively evaluate the validity of his claim when you misrepresent it? Point to where in the video he says he heard "a bomb?"

More importantly, will you answer my question? Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

I won't if you're not going to acknowledge my lenghty post earlier. I put some thought into it, the least you could do is read it.

Also read fullflavormenthol, WildCat and Jonnyclueless' posts, they make excellent and very rational points.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

"You are presenting non-evidence as evidence and it doesn't work that way."

It's false that I was presenting non-evidence as evidence. Hence you misrepresented me, like you did before.

Wait? You want us to consider testimony that never took place as evidence, and yet you accuse me of misrepresentation when I (and others) call you out on it?

You are trying to present non-evidence as evidence. Sorry, that isn't a misrepresentation. Misrepresentation isn't tearing apart your argument and you getting upset about it.

Oh and I have answered your question, but you are trying to force a complex question into a yes or no box; it isn't that simple.

 

[radical_logic]

I won't if you're not going to acknowledge my lenghty post earlier. I put some thought into it, the least you could do is read it.

Also read fullflavormenthol, WildCat and Jonnyclueless' posts, they make excellent and very rational points.

I've read everything. It will be easier to address the substance of that long post if you will provide an honest answer.

 

[Pardalis]

*puts Radical Logic on ignore*

 

[radical_logic]

You are trying to present non-evidence as evidence.

Again, this is utterly false.

Oh and I have answered your question, but you are trying to force a complex question into a yes or no box; it isn't that simple.

So you will not say that you DON'T know his claims are false?

 

[radical_logic]

I'll put it this way: Do you have any hard or compelling evidence to suggest that his claims are false?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Again, this is utterly false.

No...you continually present the "alleged testimony" claimed of other witnesses by Rodriguez as corroboration of his statements. You then call it a misrepresentation when we tell you that you can't do that because none of these statements are on the record (any record) to be evaluated. All we have is the word of Rodriguez, and no corroborating evidence, physical or eye witness.

So no, you have presented non-evidence as evidence despite trying to claim anything else.

I cannot prove a negative, but I would say that there is no evidence to prove Rodriguez's claims true.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

duplicate

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Will you admit, then, that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

That is why we use evidence. There is no evidence of bombs or any of the things that the conspiracy theorists claim. So what is the issue or problem here?

 

[uk_dave]

I'll put it this way: Do you have any hard or compelling evidence to suggest that his claims are false?

Yes, that he's never provided hard or compelling evidence that his claims are true.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It's also been shown that despite his continual claims of being the last man out, that he clearly was not the last man out. But here in the US, we have a thing called due process. And this means we don't go on witch hunts and jail people for no reason. People need to be proven guilty. We don't win a lawsuit by saying "well, you can't prove the accuser is wrong". That would be evidence of non-evidence, which radical is using and pretending that he is not.

If you're going to start a lawsuit and claim the government is in a big cover up conspiracy, then you're gonna need evidence. So far old Willie has provided no evidence, and thus he has gotten nowhere. It's really not that hard to figure out.

 

[radical_logic]

No...you continually present the "alleged testimony" claimed of other witnesses by Rodriguez as corroboration of his statements.

No, I have not. I have asserted the alleged existence of witnesses who might possibly corroborate Rodriguez's statements.

You then call it a misrepresentation when we tell you that you can't do that because none of these statements are on the record (any record) to be evaluated. All we have is the word of Rodriguez, and no corroborating evidence, physical or eye witness.

Again, in answer to the questions I've asked you, my answer is: I don't know. Hence I am not using their alleged testimony to corroborate anything. I simply pointed out that it's conceivable that they could corroborate his testimony.

So no, you have presented non-evidence as evidence despite trying to claim anything else.

False, again.

I cannot prove a negative, but I would say that there is no evidence to prove Rodriguez's claims true.

I never said there was. Again, will you admit that you just don't know? Yes or no?

 

[radical_logic]

That is why we use evidence. There is no evidence of bombs or any of the things that the conspiracy theorists claim. So what is the issue or problem here?

Rodriguez claims to have heard an explosion, not "a bomb," from under him - which also lifted him and others up - before the plane struck the tower.

He also asserts that he gave a list of witnesses to the 9/11 Commission who heard and felt the same explosion.


Will you admit that you just don't know whether his claims are true or not? I will. I simply don't know. Will you? Yes or no?

 

[radical_logic]

Yes, that he's never provided hard or compelling evidence that his claims are true.

So your "hard" evidence that his claims are false is his lack of evidence that they are true? This is logic in your world?