• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

william rodriguez

This has been dealt with before and it has something to do with the fact that sound travels faster through steel than it does through air.
 
I don't think anyone denies what Rodriguez heard, but his interpretation of it. Explosions don't necessarily equal explosives and the plane came in so fast that it all happened in the blink of an eye. It would be almost impossible for someone in the basement to know the premise second that the plane hit the building since the upper floors would sway from the impact, not the basement, and the sound of the plane approaching would've been heard well before impact.
 
it's also worth pointing out that his CT version came about after being manipulated by Christopher Bollyn. Chris is the same paranoid individual that believes cops patrolling an entire neighborhood means they are stalking his house out of the dozens/hundreds in the area. He also believes that his arrest was due to his ridiculous articles on 9/11 (Sam Danner?).
 
StoneWT said:
it's also worth pointing out that his CT version came about after being manipulated by Christopher Bollyn. Chris is the same paranoid individual that believes cops patrolling an entire neighborhood means they are stalking his house out of the dozens/hundreds in the area. He also believes that his arrest was due to his ridiculous articles on 9/11 (Sam Danner?).
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of that. Do you know where I can find more info?
 
Gravy,

You'd have to check the back issues of the American Free Press. As you know, Bollyn was the originator or chief publicizer of many of the most outlandish 9/11 CT's. The new twists to Rodriguez' story seemed to pop up around the time of articles written in the AFP by Bollyn. I'm not aware of changes to the story before the association with the likes of Bollyn and Hufschmit(?).
 
Bee Ess

Popeholden said:
he outlines his belief about the events that day, that he heard an explosion below him before he heard one above him.
Click to expand...

Even if there was an explosion below him, it's highly unlikely that he would have been able to tell the difference.

A human has two ears and can only locate the source of sound on a one dimensional axis. In short, not only can a person standing upright not tell the difference between a sound coming from above or below, s/he can't even say if it was from in front or behind.
 
osmosis said:
Even if there was an explosion below him, it's highly unlikely that he would have been able to tell the difference.

A human has two ears and can only locate the source of sound on a one dimensional axis. In short, not only can a person standing upright not tell the difference between a sound coming from above or below, s/he can't even say if it was from in front or behind.
Click to expand...

You could also use the sub-woofer analogy with regard to sound.

Or is a sub-woofer a dog with a very quiet bark? :confused:
 
You could also use the sub-woofer analogy with regard to sound.

Or is a sub-woofer a dog with a very quiet bark?
Click to expand...
arf arf

;)
 
Are Rodriguez and Scott Forbes the only persons who actually were in the towers to believe that its a government conspiracy? (well, mr. Forbes just claims somethings fishy) Mr Forbes as I understand it claims there was a massive powerdown in the South Tower prior to 911 -however I havent found anyone else supporting this.

Cheers,
SLOB
 
SLOB said:
Are Rodriguez and Scott Forbes the only persons who actually were in the towers to believe that its a government conspiracy? (well, mr. Forbes just claims somethings fishy) Mr Forbes as I understand it claims there was a massive powerdown in the South Tower prior to 911 -however I havent found anyone else supporting this.

Cheers,
SLOB
Click to expand...

As far i learned there were no additional reports that support their views. This is the strange part of the story - especially the powerdown. A lot of people should remember this, especially because it would have been unusal to see a tower "disapearing" at night during the powerdown because of missing illumination.
 
Oliver said:
As far i learned there were no additional reports that support their views. This is the strange part of the story - especially the powerdown. A lot of people should remember this, especially because it would have been unusal to see a tower "disapearing" at night during the powerdown because of missing illumination.
Click to expand...

Definately. But neither does a power-down help a conspiracy theory - as I understand it Forbes claims it took place in the South Tower the weekend prior to 911. So not only would it not have effected the North Tower - it wouldn't have helped any government agents doing foul play (e.g planting explosives). So Im not sure where it would fit a government conspiracy (more than give the CTs a bit of "look, why would a power down occure that close to 911 - a coincidence, I think not). Or am I mistaken? (And as a note - the CT video with the female voiceover, I never can separate those "documentaries", claims the powerdown was explained to be "to lay out new internet cables" - whereas Forbes say it was due to re-cabling the power supply). Im not allowed to post urls yet, but you can find the Forbes interview on Killtown Blogspot.

Cheers,
SLOB
 
Last edited:
SLOB said:
Definately. But neither does a power-down help a conspiracy theory - as I understand it Forbes claims it took place in the South Tower the weekend prior to 911. So not only would it not have effected the North Tower - it wouldn't have helped any government agents doing foul play (e.g planting explosives). So Im not sure where it would fit a government conspiracy (more than give the CTs a bit of "look, why would a power down occure that close to 911 - a coincidence, I think not). Or am I mistaken?

Cheers,
SLOB
Click to expand...

Well, i didn´t had the chance to connect the dots in the same way like conspiracy theorists do but as far i learned they pick the dots in a random way ignoring everything that disproofs their point of view.

This is strange but maybe just the wish to believe in something?
 
Gravy said:
I talk about that briefly here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2018034&postcount=363

And examine it in more detail here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40
Click to expand...

you cite mike pecarao's story in one of the links.
christophera, in the interminable "realistice" thread, selectively quotes him (and others in your link) in a vain attempt to bolster his CD fantasies.
i tackled our chris over this HERE
shooting himself in the foot once more, christopheras choosy use of mike pecararo's account of the events achieves the exact opposite of what he and other CT'ers claim. that being evidence that the "explosions" must have happened ABOVE the lower sub-levels of the tower (i mean at the B level. almost certainly down the elevator shafts) he still refuses to answer the specific questions i asked. he uses multiple get-out clauses at every opportunity.
anyway, the thread is now becoming somewhat tedious. christophera has turned into something like the village idiot in the stocks. fed up with throwing rotten tomatoes i'm on the hunt for a more challenging opponent where i can learn more methods of debunothology. any suggestions?



BV
 
Gravy,

I'm getting tired of reading AFP. It helps to keep track of the current CTs, but the inclusion of utter crap like front page stories on fake witnesses (Sam Danner) is too much to stand. I'm going to let my subscription lapse when it comes due.

The best thing I can think of is to look for an online compilation of AFP stories. Also, certain organizations (SPLC, ADL, etc.) might have access to old issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom