• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

William Rodriguez Redux. Sigh.

trustbutverify said:
Gravy, have you seen any direct quotes from Rodriquez where he actually rejected inside job in any significant way? Also, did he ever offer any explanation for his continuous associations with holocaust deniers and assorted bigots?
Click to expand...

No, I've never seen him renounce those claims since he started making them in 2005. Before that, of course, his version of events corresponded to the evidence.

I've offered to give top billing on my site to any response to my evidence that Rodriguez chooses to make, but 6 years later his silence continues.
 
Update: another thread led me to this SLC qoute by Rodriguez:


"William_Rodriguez05 September, 2012 18:00
Mr. Rodriguez: do you today believe that the sounds you described as "explosions" in the WTC sub-basement were, in fact, the detonation of explosives?

in fact, I distanced myself from many of my original beliefs after meeting so many experts ( real ones) and I clearly said and pointed that It could have been many things that could have exploded. An example will be an overload on the actual generators. I repeat what I always have clearly said since seeing ******** like Brian Good twist survivors statements around for so long, I am not an expert on explosives and that other people heard explosions, That does not means it was bombs or anything like it.You will never see me screaming, "9/11 was an inside job" anywhere. My views and beliefs have changed and evolved thanks to seeing idiots like BG."

That's great! So perhaps his more recent statements are limited to believing his original, non-bomb story was covered up (which it wasn't). I'll email him for clarification.
 
Gravy said:
That's great! So perhaps his more recent statements are limited to believing his original, non-bomb story was covered up (which it wasn't). I'll email him for clarification.
Click to expand...

Let us know what he says if you get a reply.
 
Damn, I go too long between visits here now; I missed a Gravy sighting :(. Maybe I'll go bump the "Pants" thread in community to get another post from him :D.

Getting back to seriousness: I'll be as glad as anyone else if Willie is indeed back down to earth with rationalism regarding 9/11, but at the same time the damage is done. It's not like we're hearing that he's taking a trip back to Malaysia to tell everyone "Hey, I gave you all bad info the last time...". The rationality will be good for him, but it doesn't undo the fact that he did above and beyond his part to spread irrationality to others. Most we can hope is that the ones listening were rational themselves, but as we know, there'll always be at least one sucker in the crowd. Which, as an aside, is why the truther template for action has always been proselytization... but anyway, the point is that the malicious and wrong information is still out there. And maybe I sound like a male bitch to say that recantation means little without recompense, but the side of me that's glad to see someone walk away from foolishness is getting battered by the side that's tired and upset that the irrationality was not only spread to begin with, but is rooted enough to not have to be explained to people. Lunacy should never get that far, but when it does, it's because of intentional acts by evangelists. Lunacy does not get refuted without 3 times the work it takes to spread it, and personal re-discovery of sanity is barely a blip compared to that.

I wish him well... but again, the damage to the truth is done.
 
Should threads really be opened to encourage people to go to other sites and edit its content???????
 
Well, given that the specific site in question is founded on the notion of crowdsourcing edits and the plea was to add factual, sourced information for context (as opposed to slanted, selective information for propagandistic purposes), I don't believe there's a real problem here.

If the exhortation was otherwise, sure, it's reasonable to question it. But I simply don't get that sense here.

Edit: Oh, damn, that read snarky, especially the first paragraph. I'm sorry. All I was getting at was that Wikipedia itself openly welcomes reader editing, so Gravy's post just amounts to accepting the invite.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
Well, given that the specific site in question is founded on the notion of crowdsourcing edits and the plea was to add factual, sourced information for context (as opposed to slanted, selective information for propagandistic purposes), I don't believe there's a real problem here.

If the exhortation was otherwise, sure, it's reasonable to question it. But I simply don't get that sense here.

Edit: Oh, damn, that read snarky, especially the first paragraph. I'm sorry. All I was getting at was that Wikipedia itself openly welcomes reader editing, so Gravy's post just amounts to accepting the invite.
Click to expand...

No biggie, just wondering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom