• 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.

A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

I know. I was just pointing out that this particular change in Rodriguez' story conveniently excludes a perfectly logical explanation for one of his observations. And, not coincidentally (in my opinion), there have been many such changes and embellishments to his story.

Rodriguez' actions on 9/11 were undeniably heroic; his actions since are undeniably shameful.
How about those of Jose Sanchez and Salvatore Giambanco? Would they be included too? Felipe David as well?
 
Care to answer the question? Do you, or do you not, find the delta in Rodriguez's story to be of importance?
No. If I asked you for how long you brushed your teeth this morning, and then asked you again in a week, there would probably also be a disparity. These things happen. When people seize on such trivialiites to try and discredit the witness, it is indicactive of desperation, nothing else. We have seen this in the WTC7 thread, and it is pretty tragic.

I'm just glad your ilk constitute the minority in the US.
 
Instead of riding the Gravy train and letting someone else tell you what Rodriguez experienced that day, the man will speak for himself today on CSPAN,

"SAT., SEPT. 8 AT 8PM ET

ON AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

9/11 and Oklahoma City Terrorist Attacks
This Saturday watch a speech by William Rodriguez, the janitor at the World Trade Center who rescued others on September 11. He is critical of the 9/11 Commission's report and shares his reasons for being skeptical."

Incidentally, the repeat of Giuliani's OKC talk is interesting because Giuliani claims that WTC 7 collapsed over the course of a long period of time. Well, we can all agree that's a total lie.
 
Instead of riding the Gravy train and letting someone else tell you what Rodriguez experienced that day, the man will speak for himself today on CSPAN


Have you read Gravy's paper? He lets Rodriguez speak for himself, he just compares them to other things he said.
 
Have you read Gravy's paper? He lets Rodriguez speak for himself, he just compares them to other things he said.

He has also offered to include any response from Mr Rodriguez in his paper and to speak with him on Hardfire.

Mr Rodriguez has so far declined both these offers.

Furthermore, Mr Rodriguez is a member here and so could very easily speak for himself if he wanted to. In fact, I am not aware of Mr Rodriguez responding to Gravy's paper anywhere.
 
No. If I asked you for how long you brushed your teeth this morning, and then asked you again in a week, there would probably also be a disparity. These things happen. When people seize on such trivialiites to try and discredit the witness, it is indicactive of desperation, nothing else. We have seen this in the WTC7 thread, and it is pretty tragic.

I'm just glad your ilk constitute the minority in the US.
It is not a trivial detail. The 1-2 second time originally mentioned has been shown to have alternative potential explanations to that of Rodriguez's bomb claim; the 6-7 second time now being said precludes those possible alternative explanations.

The times in his story are used to correlate his description of events with those of others and with other available data.

Your analogy is a false, and misleading one. A more correct analogy, that is consistent with the relevance of the details of the account would be:
There is an intersection where an automobile accident has occurred. Police are attempting to determine which driver ran the red light and caused the crash; as both deny doing so. At the intersection is a bank, with a clock/temp sign out front. The police determine that the sign is in synch with the light change. A witness to the crash states that the bank sign said 8:48 when the crash occurred, putting driver A at fault. Later, in a civil suite, the witness (while on the stand) claims the sign said 8:49; putting driver B at fault.


Your claim that addressing such discrepancies is a sign of desperation is erroneous as you are making assumptions about the importance of the details in question.

Whether or not those you disagree with, in this thread, represent a minority or majority of the views of individuals in the US is moot; your insistence on pointing it our is a fallacious argument to numbers.
 
Are any of them lying and embellishing their stories to make money and enhance their place in the Truth movement? If so, then yes, their actions are shameful.
Whats your evidence that he is making money from his activities?

Tread carefully now, you guys dont want another libel suit...
 
Whats your evidence that he is making money from his activities?

Tread carefully now, you guys dont want another libel suit...

How do you imagine William Rodriguez is currently supporting himself?
 
Well, let's look at this logically. Mr. Rodriguez is a janitor by trade; while this is an absolutely essential position in society, the sad fact is that it doesn't pay well. However, Mr. Rodriguez somehow manages to travel to England, Malaysia, and points in between to present his lectures. I think we can conclude that he's not making these trips on his janitor's salary. Further, it appears that he is no longer working as a janitor; it's unlikely that any employer would grant him a month off from work to go and tour Europe.

I'm not privy to Mr. Rodriguez' personal finances, but someone is financing his junkets to Europe and so on. I don't know if he got any 9/11 victims' assistance, or if he has a rich wife, or what other sources of income he might have. Perhaps someone should ask him what (or if) he charges for an appearance. That would go a long way towards clearing this up.

If I have falsely accused him of profiting from 9/11, I stand ready to apologize. But I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth, as it were.
 
How do you imagine William Rodriguez is currently supporting himself?
From sales of his dvd. He lost his job at the WTC, didnt you know?

Your implication is that he is cashing in on 9/11, i.e. making more money than he woud as a janitor. Show me how this is the case.
 
Well, let's look at this logically. Mr. Rodriguez is a janitor by trade; while this is an absolutely essential position in society, the sad fact is that it doesn't pay well. However, Mr. Rodriguez somehow manages to travel to England, Malaysia, and points in between to present his lectures. I think we can conclude that he's not making these trips on his janitor's salary. Further, it appears that he is no longer working as a janitor; it's unlikely that any employer would grant him a month off from work to go and tour Europe.

I'm not privy to Mr. Rodriguez' personal finances, but someone is financing his junkets to Europe and so on. I don't know if he got any 9/11 victims' assistance, or if he has a rich wife, or what other sources of income he might have. Perhaps someone should ask him what (or if) he charges for an appearance. That would go a long way towards clearing this up.

If I have falsely accused him of profiting from 9/11, I stand ready to apologize. But I would like to hear it from the horse's mouth, as it were.
He charges nothing for his appearances. I am part of the London group- he stays at houses of members, and gets taken from place to place by them too.

Apology?
 
From sales of his dvd. He lost his job at the WTC, didnt you know?

Your implication is that he is cashing in on 9/11, i.e. making more money than he woud as a janitor. Show me how this is the case.

He is making money on the basis of a lie, how much is irrelevant.

He is, rightly, entitled to compensation from the government.
 
what's that pricks name... troy! troy from wv


Uhh... Troy made that up.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user= screwloosechange &comment=9202265377869053586

Civilized Worm said:
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1883.html

So you made up all that stuff about him "ruining your life"? How is it again that you're better than the twoofers?
troy from wv said:
I thought it was so ridiculous that it wouldn't be taken seriously. Sued? Life ruined? For what again?
 

Back
Top Bottom