TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- William Rodriguez, a 9-11 hero and his testimony

William Rodriguez, a 9-11 hero and his testimony

What is up with the Alex Jones obsession?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka What is up with the Alex Jones obsession?

Forget Alex Jones and watch William Rodriguez's testimony.

Does anyone know why his testimony was not used by the 9/11 commsion.?

quote:

Originally posted by jonSun Does anyone know why his testimony was not used by the 9/11 commsion.?

Isn't that kind of obvious?

I'd like to see the conspiracy theorist who believe the official conspiracy theory write this off. Ofcourse, I expect them too, just like they ignore all the other evidence.

A great video.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I'd like to see the conspiracy theorist who believe the official conspiracy theory write this off. Ofcourse, I expect them too, just like they ignore all the other evidence.

well, where shall we start?

given all the risks the US govt took organising 9/11 why hasn't he been silenced?

he doesnt come across as a witness so much as someone pushing an agenda. witness doesn't argue, a witness tells what happens.

perhaps his testimony wasnt included in the report coz nobody thought he was credible? he's hardly the neutral observer. looks like someone who is enjoying not being a janitor any more. its not his "testimony" so much as it is his speech.

i particularly like his emphasis on asking for god's help. "that was a miracle by itself". oh classic

doesnt mind playing the hero either does he?

so, the entire 9/11 commission is also a part of the conspiracy, by not including his testimony? ok.

ok. ive finished now. is that it? im still waiting for any evidence of anything at all could you perhaps point it out for me, i havent heard anything that is even remotely conclusive of anything. seriously, i want my 50 mins back.

everyone else- this is what a REAL controlled demolition looks like. amazing the distinct differences between it and the WTCs

^^ Exactly the kind of response I expected from you, writing it off like that.

As far as that controlled demolition video goes, looks just like 9-11. You're not helping your case.

Are his theories or postulates written down in a concise text format that can facilitate critique? I listened to about 20 minutes of it before I got tired of listening to a public speaker speak. Pending that release here's an off the cuff analysis I found (which will be a barometer as to how engaged people are willing to get outside of cuts and pastes) ...

William Rodriguez says he heard an explosion at the WTC "just seconds before" the plane hit.

quote:

Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors. He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions. http://www.arcticbeacon.com/article...18131/28031.htm

We're not quite sure what the suggestion is here. Why would a bomb in the basement be required to go off as the plane hit? What's the point? It wasn't aimed to demolish the building, presumably. It increased the risk of detection, required more effort in planting and hiding it, careful timing, and yet (if there were bombs elsewhere in the building) would achieve nothing at all.

It might weaken the structure, you're saying? Why? The towers collapsed from the impact point down, not from the base. There�s nothing a bomb 90+ floors below could do to affect that. And remember, the very base of the towers were left standing. This part of the structure is all that remained, which is why a few people survived in the lower stairwells and basement levels. No sign of it being weakened there.

Still, that's another argument. Our first concern with Rodriguez is the way his story has expanded since its first hearing, reported soon after the attacks.

quote:

William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building. "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

Nothing as definitive here, nothing specific about timing, no use of loaded words like "explosions". Why not?

Of course, even here we still have a pair of events, rumble one and rumble two. Is there a possible explanation for this? Maybe so.

As you'll probably remember from watching the initial impact video, the first plane didn't explode on the outside of the building. It disappeared inside first, the explosion following a fraction of a second later.

Now, how is Rodriguez going to hear the explosion? He's a long way below, but plainly something like this is going to reach him through the air. The speed of sound is 767 miles per hour (http://library.thinkquest.org/19537/Physics4.html) at 20 degrees, which means it'll travel 1,124 feet in a second. That's actually a reasonable approximation of Rodriguez distance from the impact site, actually, so we'll live with it for now.

Except, to clarify, that's just sound through the air. Sound travels through steel more than 17 times faster, 13,332 mph (http://library.thinkquest.org/19537/Physics4.html), which means the impact sound (and related physical effects as the building flexes) could reach someone 1,124 feet away in under 0.06 of a second.

The 9/11 Commission reported another consequence of the explosion.

quote:

A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-302.html

This could provide a third source of sound and physical manifestations of an explosion, following immediately after the other two. Others say that the fireball couldn�t have caused such effects that far down, but there is some supporting evidence. Consider this from a worker below Rodriguez:

quote:

...the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and �sit tight� until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. �We smelled kerosene,� Mike recalled... http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpu..._explosions.htm

Kerosene? That would be consistent with an explosion caused by jet fuel.

Anyway, put it all together and we have something that looks like this.

The plane hits the building. The first sound and effects of this reaches Rodriguez potentially before the explosion has taken place.

The jet fuel explodes, the sound of the initial impact and this reaching Rodriguez through the air almost a second later.

Then we have the sound of the fireball shooting down elevators close to Rodriguez location. This would presumably occur virtually at the same time as the second, airborne sound, but would also be distinct from that as a sound (it would appear to come from somewhere else).

Mixed up in all this is the reaction of the building. Seismic records of the first impact show major movement for over ten seconds (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html) as the structure flexes from the initial impact. How would that manifest itself in the lower levels? Would workers there realise that any noticeable effects were separate from the other events, or would they tie them together, and think they were caused by (say) the fireball in the elevator?

It's important to note that we don't have the answers here. We don't know exactly how Rodriguez story ties in to the whole, which "rumble" relates to which event. However, it's plain that the first version of his story is quite different to the second. And as you see in the first quote, it�s expanding with details that he can�t possibly know, like explosions occurring �before� the airliner hit. He didn�t see the impact, that�s an after-the-fact interpretation. If this were a court of law then that kind of comment would be taken out, and we�d consider only what he experienced himself.

We're also not convinced that Rodriguez could reliably tell whether an explosion occurred above, or beneath him, especially if he's talking about the elevator fireball. And as the initial flex of the building, and impact sound, would have arrived through steel around a second before sound carried through the air. Perhaps there are other explanations here than "bombs in the basement".



So I'm curious to see if any of his allegations can be supported by scientific evidence. If anyone is willing to make those ties, I would love to see that analysis because that at least would be something worthy of argumentative debate immune to speculation and conjecture.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z As far as that controlled demolition video goes, looks just like 9-11. You're not helping your case.

youre not serious?

the towers collapsed from the top down, not from the base. also, see how many explosions it takes to level that building. and they are all VERY obvious demolition squibs. the WTCs fell outwards, with debris going everywhere, not landing in a nice little pile. the only "squibs" from the WTCs start after the collapse, and theyre obviously not from explosives (ie explosive squibs do not get bigger or increase with time like the WTC squibs).

again:

WTCS: collapsed top-down.

that video: bottom up.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, where shall we start? given all the risks the US govt took organising 9/11 why hasn't he been silenced?

That's a pretty silly question. You can't eliminate someone with that amount of publicity so easily, especially considering the fact that he was made a national hero after 9-11.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN he doesnt come across as a witness so much as someone pushing an agenda. witness doesn't argue, a witness tells what happens. perhaps his testimony wasnt included in the report coz nobody thought he was credible? he's hardly the neutral observer. looks like someone who is enjoying not being a janitor any more. its not his "testimony" so much as it is his speech.

It was a speech at the 9-11 conference in LA which included his testimony as to what he experienced on 9-11.

And if he wanted a "status boost" and is someone who's "not enjoying being a janitor any more," he would have accepted whatever combination of deals offered to him (i.e. in politics, entertainment, or both).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i particularly like his emphasis on asking for god's help. "that was a miracle by itself". oh classic

Haha. Very funny.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN doesnt mind playing the hero either does he?

Considering the risks he took in saving lives on 9-11, almost loosing his own in the process, I wouldn't say he's "playing the hero." You've got quite a bit of nerve to say something like that.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, the entire 9/11 commission is also a part of the conspiracy, by not including his testimony? ok.

For someone who claims to have done his research in 9-11, you're displaying quite a bit of ignorance here.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ok. ive finished now. is that it? im still waiting for any evidence of anything at all could you perhaps point it out for me, i havent heard anything that is even remotely conclusive of anything. seriously, i want my 50 mins back.

Evidence != Proof.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's a pretty silly question. You can't eliminate someone with that amount of publicity so easily, especially considering the fact that he was made a national hero after 9-11.

but you can orchestrate the biggest conspiracy of all time in front of the eyes of half the world? ok.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Considering the risks he took in saving lives on 9-11, almost loosing his own in the process, I wouldn't say he's "playing the hero." You've got quite a bit of nerve to say something like that.

see, im not saying he isnt a hero. but theres a fucking big difference between telling people what happened, and going on and on and EMPHASISING everything that he did. it was pretty egotistical as far as im concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z For someone who claims to have done his research in 9-11, you're displaying quite a bit of ignorance here.

well, please enlighten me. id like to know exactly what omitting his testimony means. especially considering i watched that whole fucking video, at much pain to myself, and still dont see what youre going on about. is this all you guys have? 1 witness? 1 witness that heard funny noises on the day of the tragedy. haha!

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Evidence != Proof.

well, point out the evidence for me, what it means and how youve come to that conclusion.

also- you havent explained to me how the video of the demolition is exactly the same as the WTC collapse. id also like to see you address occ's arguments as well. picking on me is a lot easier

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.