A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

[SDC]

...
Are you that clueless to realize the smell most likely came from the parking garage where apparently an explosive device or devices may have been located in a truck was used to destroy the garage among other things in the basement?
Are you so dense as to ignore the historical tactics of terrorists especially in relation to these buildings?

I cut a lot from that, in order to focus. (Focus, people, focus!) Let me say this:

First, I like the sentence which begins, "Are you..." We've got, "most likely," "apparently," and "may have been" in a single sentence! Like, heck; I love it! It's one of the best attempts to avoid making a positive, definite, declaration I've read in some time. Congratulations!

Second, the "historical tactics ... in relation to these buildings" clearly refers to 1993, when a bomb was placed in a truck in the garage... And it did very little damage. (A few people were killed and the garage was a mess. The buildings were fine.) After that they became more interested in airplanes since they realized that trucks weren't going to do it. No more Rent-a-Trucks!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Result of the 1993 WTC bombing: http://bilder.vgb.no/14097/img_467964039a4c2.jpg

It doesn't even look like any of the columns in the blast zone were severed.

And for about the hundredth time: If 9/11 was an inside job, what possible purpose would blowing up the garage (again) serve in a top-down collapse? You truthers need to think real hard about this one.

 

[RedIbis]

Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. To the doubters, keep in mind that, as did all the other witnesses, Rodriguez heard and felt one explosion emanating from the basement, not several at different times. Edward McCabe (spelling left as is):
I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative to the jet fuel scenario, that accounts for all the observations, from the conspiracy believers. I can't think of one.

Clarify something here. Is this McCabe speaking or is this Rodriguez speaking?

 

[Disbelief]

Are you that clueless to realize the smell most likely came from the parking garage where apparently an explosive device or devices may have been located in a truck was used to destroy the garage among other things in the basement?
Are you so dense as to ignore the historical tactics of terrorists especially in relation to these buildings?
Are you such a believer that you refuse to trace the route the fireball took to cause the damage in the basement and still account for survivors?
Are you not the mathematician that can provide the overpressure data and fuel/air ratio that is needed to support this theory?

So, they timed this explosion so closely to a plane hitting the building? How did they do that? Where were they? What type of device was used?

 

[Swing Dangler]

The facts don't support planted explosives or thermite either.

I suggest examining how the jet fuel/fireball/ got to the basement. And then you will completely understand why that theory must be rejected as the facts do not support such an event. I suspect this is why NIST chose not to support the event with science but only assumptions. However, an explosive device/devices would explain why the FBI used that as a working theory on that morning. It would account for the destroyed parking garage and PATH Level Plaza cave-in, it would explain why secretaries who were injured thought a bomb had went off in their office, it matches the description of damage in the basement, it explains why people nearest the impact survived the overpressure and blast but people and structures farthest away did not.

First, I like the sentence which begins, "Are you..." We've got, "most likely," "apparently," and "may have been" in a single sentence! Like, heck; I love it! It's one of the best attempts to avoid making a positive, definite, declaration I've read in some time.

I recognize and understand the verbiage you are attacking. However, the method of delivery is speculation which is why I used that language. On the other hand, I also notice your complete dodge of the points. Excellent.

You must come up with the proof of explosives and you have failed for 6 years to come up with facts. When can we expect a breakthrough from 9/11 truth?

You realize the only empirical evidence that would prove either way are the chemical tests of a large enough sample showing or not showing explosive residue. You are very aware there were no such tests done. Rejected.

 

[WildCat]

I suggest examining how the jet fuel/fireball/ got to the basement.

Gravity, or do you have evidence that gravity did not attract mass to the center of the earth on 9/11?

And then you will completely understand why that theory must be rejected as the facts do not support such an event.

So you reject the notion that gravity was in play on 9/11?

I recognize and understand the verbiage you are attacking. However, the method of delivery is speculation which is why I used that language. On the other hand, I also notice your complete dodge of the points. Excellent.

What point was that? I didn't see one...

You realize the only empirical evidence that would prove either way are the chemical tests of a large enough sample showing or not showing explosive residue. You are very aware there were no such tests done. Rejected.

Amazing! You now demand a test under conditions such that it will be impossible to prove! You will just claim that the sample was not large enough when they invariably come back showing no explosive residue. Thank you for confirming that there is no evidence that will change your mind.

 

[SDC]

I recognize and understand the verbiage you are attacking. However, the method of delivery is speculation which is why I used that language. On the other hand, I also notice your complete dodge of the points. Excellent.

Cut a lot because this is the only bit which responded to my comments.

Listen, don't be modest! A little modesty is fine, sure, but you are blushing and simpering to excess. Let me clarify: it was a truly OUTSTANDING sentence in its TOTAL AVOIDANCE OF anything positive! Honest, you have nothing to be humble about. I wish I could write like that, but heck, I keep bringing up facts'n'stuff.

I wasn't addressing your points. I was so, well, swept away by your word choice. How do you expect me to keep a level head one I am confronted with what may be one of the greatest sentences I've ever read?

I remove my keyboard in awe. You are a Master.

 

[RedIbis]

Clarify something here. Is this McCabe speaking or is this Rodriguez speaking?

Would someone be kind enough to quote my post #303 otherwise, Gravy won't clarify this.

It's not clear from his quote whether this is McCabe or Rodriguez speaking.

 

[Disbelief]

Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. To the doubters, keep in mind that, as did all the other witnesses, Rodriguez heard and felt one explosion emanating from the basement, not several at different times. Edward McCabe (spelling left as is):
I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative to the jet fuel scenario, that accounts for all the observations, from the conspiracy believers. I can't think of one.

Clarify something here. Is this McCabe speaking or is this Rodriguez speaking?

Per request.

 

[RedIbis]

Per request.

Thanks, it's appreciated.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Perhaps Swinger can provide us with those "facts" he speaks of which show how an explosive can cause a fireball to go down the elevator shafts. And perhaps my Dangle can show us the specific parts of the NIST report where they got this wrong.

And since the explosives claim requires no assumption, please show us the explosives used and the parts recovered from the bomb. What type of explosives wer they again? Remember, we want the facts, not assumptions.

 

[R.Mackey]

To nut, the problem is that is the logic and the facts needed to support a fireball from jet fuel. And guess what? You can't. Gravy can't. NIST can't. R Mackey can't. The 9/11 Com. can't.None of you bunks can.
How many times do I have to offer that challenge?

What are you talking about?

Yet you can't even offer the route the jet fuel took to get to the sub levels and B-4! You can't explain how people closest to the impact and over pressure survived while parts of the basement did not!

For at least the fourth time: Elevator Shaft 50A.

And since the ignition point could well have been at the bottom of the shaft, there is no overpressure problem. Nobody assumes there was a single, continuous, 80-story fireball all the way from point of impact to basement.

Go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears again if you must. It's quite amusing.

 

[RedIbis]

Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. To the doubters, keep in mind that, as did all the other witnesses, Rodriguez heard and felt one explosion emanating from the basement, not several at different times. Edward McCabe (spelling left as is):

I figured this one out for myself. Despite the misleading description, the quote which followed was not Rodriguez but Edward McCabe.

It might have been helpful if Gravy said, "As Edward McCabe stated," or if he formed a complete sentence which would identify the speaker.

With that lead in and the lack of a verb after McCabe, the analysis is trying to give the impression that it's Rodriquez's words.

As for Rodriguez's actual quotes using the word "fireball," Gravy doesn't give us a link only the broad claim that it was said on television in 01 and 02. Ok, what TV show? When? Where? Where's the transcript?

I suspect this is just twisting the man's words to fit a pet theory.

I might also point out that even McCabe did not report seeing a jet fuel fireball, he was told that the explosion he witnessed was due to a jet fuel fireball. That's entirely different, but perhaps only a subtle and insignificant difference to some.

I'll bold to make my point:

I later on found out the reason there was an explosion was the jet fuel filled the elevator shaft and seconds later a spark triggered an explosion.

 

[Norseman]

And not to forget elevator shafts 6 and 7 that continued all the way down to B4. Even though the 6 and 7 elevators did not serve B2, B3 and B4 there was an access door on B4 according to the architectural drawings. So go ahead and check it out Swing Dangler, it is on a truther site.

 

[Architect]

I figured this one out for myself. Despite the misleading description, the quote which followed was not Rodriguez but Edward McCabe.

It might have been helpful if Gravy said, "As Edward McCabe stated," or if he formed a complete sentence which would identify the speaker.

With that lead in and the lack of a verb after McCabe, the analysis is trying to give the impression that it's Rodriquez's words.

With respect, you're just plain wrong.

 

[RedIbis]

With respect, you're just plain wrong.

Wrong about what? You don't think Gravy was trying to tie Rodriguez with McCabe's comments?

I quoted McCabe. He didn't say he observed jet fuel, smelled it, or saw it rushing down the shafts. He said the explosion he witnessed, he was later told, was due to a jet fuel fireball.

Try to be more specific with your charges.

 

[Architect]

You're trying to read something into Gravy's comments that isn't there. If pedantry is your last weapon, then you're in trouble......

 

[SDC]

You're trying to read something into Gravy's comments that isn't there. If pedantry is your last weapon, then you're in trouble......

On behalf of pedants everywhere, I object to this comment. In fact, I'm... I'm... I'm going to be pedantic about it.

 

[RedIbis]

You're trying to read something into Gravy's comments that isn't there. If pedantry is your last weapon, then you're in trouble......

Call it what you want, but when the business here is character assassination, I'm going to ask for precision.

 

[Hellbound]

It isn't character assassination.

It's character autopsy.