A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

William has replied that he will present his case in national media interviews but not directly with me.

Oh, he'll "present his case in national media interviews" and not directly with you, all right. He knows that he cannot refute what you've written because it is factual. He also knows that he can do short sound bites in the media and that he won't be questioned about his many inaccuracies by those doing the interviewing, as long as they remain ignorant about his ever-changing story.

His email signature says
"William Rodriguez
Last Survivor of the North Tower of the WTC"

I hope that changes.

It is unlikely that he will change it even though he knows it is a lie. The fact that it is a lie has been pointed out to him before but he continues to use it to promote his own self-interests.

You are quite correct in pointing out that his actions in recent years have been anything but heroic.
 
Last edited:
What about Dudley and Nell?

This is probably well beneath the level of discourse, but I couldn't resist.

doright-1.png
 
Thank's for your efforts Gravy. I haven't read the entire thing yet (the counter-accounts, etc) however what I have read honestly just makes me sad. The story of Mr Rodriguez really just makes me feel really quite sad for him.

-Gumboot
 
and the ad hom attacks on gravy's paper (and those who promote it ) start. Merc on the myspace forums was quick to put in the predictable jibes (why are you attacking a hero, are you afraid of what he says?; you're jealous because he is going to appear on The View and Mark is only a simple tour guide; Dont worry, the VIew has a larger audience than Marks' website, etc etc)
 
LCF are very worked up about it, and reckon there's no point in responding to it as Gravy is a nobody, a mere tour guide. I've pointed out that this is a very shortsighted strategy, as the paper rather comprehensively undermines the credibility of an important member of their movement, but they're just shouting at me.

[sigh]
 
Same at DU. One person has taken my "link, quote, and rebuttal" challenge - link to Mark's website, quote a part of it, and rebut that part of it. One single person. They tried to argue against the claim that William had blamed the government for the 9/11 attacks. I directed them to the lawsuits. Then another person jumped in (which was fine) and said those claims were made only for discovery purposes, that the "lawyer" didn't really mean that. I quoted the part of the lawsuit where the plaintiff accuses all of the defendants of foreknowledge, including "the United States." I made the mistake of saying that the President and his entire Cabinet were listed on the lawsuit individually as defendants, but I was corrected on that point. (Hey, Norman Mineta is on the list - I figured if he was there, they all were!)

Almost everyone else has simply refused to go look at it, claiming "the same old thing." One person started a huge flamewar about a completely unrelated topic - I got it cut from the thread. And one person tried to quote gumboot's review from JREF about 9/11 Press for Truth!

Don't worry - they'll figure it out soon enough. I've only gone wrong using Mark's stuff when I've been the stupid one (see above example). Mr. Roberts, you have done us all a great service.
 
I was going to post a sketch of the structural mechanism on LCF, but couldn't see an easy way of doing it on their engine; if I hit IMG, it needed a web reference and wouldn't apparently be directed to my hard drive instead. But instead of telling me how to do it, one guy just keeps sending messages saying "worked it out yet?" in a sneering tone.

[sigh]
 
Would that be when I said the Jersey Girls were idiot Truthers who just wanted someone to lynch?

-Gumboot

Yes. To be fair to the truther at DU, Mark does link to that review, but it is way down the list (the truther said the link was up at the top - truthers are always truth-challenged).

And you phrased that a little more sensitively in the review as well. I do disagree with your take on the documentary, though. Of all the CT movies, it's the one I can deal with, because a) it barely flirts with the hooey, and b) I found most of its points fairly well made. I think the Bush Administration can take its fair share of the blame for a lot of the conspiracy theories out there. They certainly do act as if they have plenty to hide, and they most likely do. I know that it's not the planning and execution of 9/11, and I doubt strongly that it's certain or general knowledge of the actual attacks.

But there was a distinct and obstinate disregard by the Bush administration for the lessons learned by the Clinton administration concerning the al-Qaeda threat. We continue to learn about the full court press being made by people in the government to instill some responsible awareness of this general and looming threat, and we can see how they were marginalized and dismissed and stonewalled, right down to Bush telling a CIA briefer trying to follow up that 6 Aug PDB, "Alright, you've covered your [rule8]." When Bush sat in that classroom after Card's message, you'd better believe those words were floating through his mind at some point.

Is this LIHOP? No, this is LIHBTWIFWDGAD - they (the Republicans in Charge™) let it happen because they were incompetent [rule8]s who didn't give a [rule8]. Please note, I am not talking about anyone's actions on the day of, and I'm not even saying that they could have stopped the attacks. But the Clinton Administration might not have stopped the Millennium plot either. Only the chance arrest by a border guard gave them a clue - and by then, the Clintons were looking for clues. The Bushes weren't looking.

The defining character of this administration is that of George Bush - an incuriosity that should be criminal in our Chief Executive, and 9/11 changed that not at all. The only posterior George Bush has ever been interested in covering is his own, and that is what the Jersey Girls, Democrat and Republican alike, were fighting through their grief, and I for one applaud that fight. It's a fight the first citizens of this country picked with their own insufferable George.

The Jersey Girls' woo is their problem. But the overall point of the documentary I saw was that this foot-dragging, rear-covering administration has provided much of the fertilizer for the conspiracy theories that we argue against today. Even if the questions be sometimes stupid, they deserved answers provided in a way that is recognizably just. Their husbands died and they expected their government to protect them. The Bush Administration owed it to them AND to the people who fought their hearts out to stop the attacks on 9/11 to have a free, open, and trustworthy examination of what led to that day.

And, no, it has not happened yet, not publicly. And judging by their conduct of the Iraqi war, not privately either.

Sorry to get political here. Ron, feel free to take me down.
 
Spin Spin Sugar

Buddy:
The problem is not so much that his story changed in some aspects, but that you guys want to make that the focus. So rather than try explain what Willie experienced you want to discuss why Willie didn't explain his experience the same way everytime. You cut NIST slack and let them do it and it doesn't (apparently) affect their credibility, but it does (apparently) for Willie. And Willie doesn't have proof of explosives beyond what he experienced. He recounts his experience, not provide physical evidence.

So that's it. If that's all you guys got, it's not going to discredit Willie or his experience.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9574&st=100&#last

Fascinating.

An eyewitness is allowed to change his recollection of a single event because an investigation was also able to modify it's interim conclusions based upon the discovery of new evidence during the investigative process.

If an eyewitness to a murder says "the man in red" did it, and then changes this later to "It was the man in blue wot done it" the 'truther' wants to ignore this change in testimony and concentrate solely on the 'man in blue'.
 
I was going to post a sketch of the structural mechanism on LCF, but couldn't see an easy way of doing it on their engine; if I hit IMG, it needed a web reference and wouldn't apparently be directed to my hard drive instead. But instead of telling me how to do it, one guy just keeps sending messages saying "worked it out yet?" in a sneering tone.

[sigh]

Sounds like they won't accept attachments. You could put it up on your VB image storage on JREF. They would love that if it comes up with JREF on the image.
 
There is zero chance that Mr. Rodriguez will ever address Gravy's definitive work, not in any meaningful way (at least not with anyone watching). He knows full well that his career as a professional hero will end the moment Gravy's paper ever becomes well-known, so he's desperately counting on it remaining out of the public eye. Rodriguez is way too smart to go on any popular forum and even so much as whisper Gravy's name. It would call attention to this mountain of damning, irrefutable facts, evaporating Willie's reputation faster than water tossed on fissioning plutonium.
 
Last edited:
The Jersey Girls' woo is their problem. But the overall point of the documentary I saw was that this foot-dragging, rear-covering administration has provided much of the fertilizer for the conspiracy theories that we argue against today. Even if the questions be sometimes stupid, they deserved answers provided in a way that is recognizably just. Their husbands died and they expected their government to protect them. The Bush Administration owed it to them AND to the people who fought their hearts out to stop the attacks on 9/11 to have a free, open, and trustworthy examination of what led to that day.

And, no, it has not happened yet, not publicly. And judging by their conduct of the Iraqi war, not privately either.

Sorry to get political here. Ron, feel free to take me down.




I see what you're saying, but I don't agree.

I've read the "unanswered questions" the family members complain about, and almost all of them are total BS. They're either stupid questions of the CTer type, or they're questions that were answered and family members just don't like the answers.

The main push of 9/11 Press For Truth was that the mainstream media has failed to report the facts of what happened on 9/11. Amongst others they present Paul Thompson, whose 9/11 Timeline is solely sourced from mainstream media.

Some Americans simply cannot and will not accept the fact that their government could not stop the 9/11 attacks. You were beaten fair and square by a superior enemy.

The hijackers were not known terrorists. They had not committed any crimes. They were not building bombs.

As for Bush and his lack of desire to look for "clues", I disagree. Bush cannot read every single intelligence report. He has to rely on what he is told. Specialists now claim the system was "blinking red". The August 6 Memo tells a very different story. It presents a very low risk level, nothing new, only historical intentions of terrorists. The gist of the August 6 memo was:

1) Al Qaeda said they wanted to attack us in the USA 3 years ago, and they probably still want to.
2) We've got 50 FBI investigations around the country looking into terrorism.

That says to me there's no imminent threat, everything is fine, don't worry.

Now if the system really was blinking red, the question is why did Bush's security advisors give him a memo saying the complete opposite?

It is not the President's job to find and prevent terrorist attacks. That is the task for those on the front line; the FBI, CIA, customs guards, and so forth. Unless Bush's administration initiated big changes in policy for these agencies relating to counter-terrorism in the 8 months between entering office and 9/11, really there's absolutely nothing that can be blamed on the administration. By January 2001 it was too late. The hijackers had begun to change their behaviour to ensure operational security.

We either lock down our societies, or we take on the terrorists on their own turf. If you let them get in the country, your chances of stopping them drop considerably.

-Gumboot
 
We either lock down our societies, or we take on the terrorists on their own turf. If you let them get in the country, your chances of stopping them drop considerably.

But here's the catch. When the first actually illegal thing they do is blow up a building, how do you stop them? While with hindsight we can look at what Atta and the others were doing and realise that they actions were suspicious, at the time they could have been totally legit. Do we ban all Muslims from our countries incase one is a terrorist? Do we prevent them from gathering togther incase they are plotting an attack? Do we have our law enforcement follow them about and keep tabs on them 24/7? Where does the line between our rights being violated by an attack, and their rights being violated by our security get draw? Tough questions, and I'm not sure I know the answers.
 
But here's the catch. When the first actually illegal thing they do is blow up a building, how do you stop them? While with hindsight we can look at what Atta and the others were doing and realise that they actions were suspicious, at the time they could have been totally legit. Do we ban all Muslims from our countries incase one is a terrorist? Do we prevent them from gathering togther incase they are plotting an attack? Do we have our law enforcement follow them about and keep tabs on them 24/7? Where does the line between our rights being violated by an attack, and their rights being violated by our security get draw? Tough questions, and I'm not sure I know the answers.

That's why they will always have the advantage
 
That's why they will always have the advantage

As the IRA always said, MI5 had to get lucky all the time. The IRA only had to be lucky once.

Of course the UK, notably England, have had to live with the spectre of terrorism since the late 60s/early 70s - and with a comparatively small number of serious outrages for what was a determined campaign.
 
But here's the catch. When the first actually illegal thing they do is blow up a building, how do you stop them? While with hindsight we can look at what Atta and the others were doing and realise that they actions were suspicious, at the time they could have been totally legit. Do we ban all Muslims from our countries incase one is a terrorist? Do we prevent them from gathering togther incase they are plotting an attack? Do we have our law enforcement follow them about and keep tabs on them 24/7? Where does the line between our rights being violated by an attack, and their rights being violated by our security get draw? Tough questions, and I'm not sure I know the answers.



That's pretty much exactly what I am saying. :) The only way to prevent them at home, is to lock down your own society. That means depriving people or rights, unjustified arrests, ridiculous security precautions, and so forth. The things we don't want.

Of course now the hijackers could have been busted simply for having attended an Al Qaeda training camp, but how can you know they did this, when the Iranian government weren't stamping their passports when they went into Afghanistan?

-Gumboot
 
Of course now the hijackers could have been busted simply for having attended an Al Qaeda training camp, but how can you know they did this, when the Iranian government weren't stamping their passports when they went into Afghanistan?

Several of them mysteriously "lost" their passports and applied for new ones after they returned from Afghanistan as well.
 

Back
Top Bottom