A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

[MaGZ]

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.

Gravy’s next paper should be on Giuliani and 9/11. Which is the biggest liar? Rodriguez and the Truthers will never be president, Giuliani might.

 

[MaGZ]

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.

Hasn't Rudy Giuliani profited from 9/11?

 

[Burrell]

How do you define Profit?

In your opinion, what are the keys areas that he has gained?

My concern is that, if you use a very wide definition covering areas such as acquired knowledge and media exposure, then the truth movement and even those of us with differing views to the conspiracy theorists could also be seen to 'profit' from the tragic events of the 11th of September 2001.

 

[MaGZ]

How do you define Profit?

In your opinion, what are the keys areas that he has gained?

My concern is that, if you use a very wide definition, then the truth movement can also be seen to 'profit' from the tragic events of the 11th of September 2001.

Let’s move this discussion to the new thread I recently created.

 

[Burrell]

This thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93399

(I was half way fixing the last two paragraphs when you posted the reply).

 

[RedIbis]

Gravy’s next paper should be on Giuliani and 9/11. Which is the biggest liar? Rodriguez and the Truthers will never be president, Giuliani might.

I actually just made a very similar comment that there is a tremendous amount of energy spent on proving the "truthers" are "denialists" and liars, whereas, there is no criticism focused on the very people who were most in a position to prevent this horrible crime.

I wouldn't be holding my breath on any critical analyses on Giuliani, Myers, Bush or anyone else in the gov't.

 

[Par]

I actually just made a very similar comment that there is a tremendous amount of energy spent on proving the "truthers" are "denialists" and liars, whereas, there is no criticism focused on the very people who were most in a position to prevent this horrible crime. I wouldn't be holding my breath on any critical analyses on Giuliani, Myers, Bush or anyone else in the gov't.

This seems to be a fairly common fallacy. The suggestion is that it is somehow wrong or improper to highlight the lies and deception of one person while other more prominent lies and deceptions may exist.

Even if it the sentiment itself were accurate, it is, at its core, simply an attempt to change the subject. You would rather turn the focus of the discussion away from the dishonesty of a member of the “Truth Movement” and towards the supposed misplaced priorities of members of the debunking community.

Incidentally, it might be worth bearing in mind that if certain members of the “Truth Movement” would stop being dishonest, then others would have more time available to heap criticism upon those who you hold to be more deserving of it.

 

[jhunter1163]

Incidentally, it might be worth bearing in mind that if certain members of the “Truth Movement” would stop being dishonest, then others would have more time available to heap criticism upon those who you hold to be more deserving of it.

If the Truthers stopped being intellectually dishonest, the Truth Movement would disappear like the abovementioned fart in the wind.

 

[RedIbis]

Incidentally, it might be worth bearing in mind that if certain members of the “Truth Movement” would stop being dishonest, then others would have more time available to heap criticism upon those who you hold to be more deserving of it.

You might consider prioritizing and not let those movements you deem invalid to distract you from investigating the obvious contradictions and deceptions in the official story.

 

[JamesB]

Just to second what Par is saying, if he saw a fireball then it wasn't a steel-cutting explosive. Might have been a variant of a cratering charge, but that brings in another problem. A fireball like you see in movie explosions is mostly gasoline, and would not have been effective in initiating a collapse.

That is one thing I was disappointed in when I joined the army. I was used to 50 foot fireballs in the air on TV. When I first saw grenades going off, I thought "That was it!"

 

[Par]

You might consider prioritizing and not let those movements you deem invalid to distract you from investigating the obvious contradictions and deceptions in the official story.

Well, unfortunately you’ve now committed the begging the question fallacy. Whether or not the “official” account of 9/11 is significantly inaccurate is precisely the question at issue.

 

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by RedIbis
You might consider prioritizing and not let those movements you deem invalid to distract you from investigating the obvious contradictions and deceptions in the official story.

Geez, I could swear that I repeatedly asked RedIbis to name something significant that the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong, and he said he could not. Huh. I must be thinking of someone else.


A reminder: this thread is about William Rodriguez.

 

[RedIbis]

Well, unfortunately you’ve now committed the begging the question fallacy. Whether or not the “official” account of 9/11 is significantly inaccurate is precisely the question at issue.

I'm just curious why the "skeptics" here are not more critical of a Commission Report that in Lee Hamilton's words was "set up to fail." Or the incompetence of the Acting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Richard Myers.

 

[Par]

I'm just curious why the "skeptics" here are not more critical of a Commission Report that in Lee Hamilton's words was "set up to fail."

At the risk of derailing, while they indeed had sincere reservations about how it was formed, funded and so forth, neither Hamilton nor Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is also a quotation from their book Without Precedent:

Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.

In short, whether or not they believe that the commission was “set up to fail”, they don’t believe that it actually did fail.

 

[RedIbis]

Geez, I could swear that I repeatedly asked RedIbis to name something significant that the 9/11 Commission report gets wrong, and he said he could not. Huh. I must be thinking of someone else.


A reminder: this thread is about William Rodriguez.

Please. When did I say I couldn't point something that the Commission Report gets wrong? Clearly, you must be thinking of someone you don't have on ignore.

 

[Par]

Please. When did I say I couldn't point something that the Commission Report gets wrong? Clearly, you must be thinking of someone you don't have on ignore.

Well, by all means, start a new thread devoted to the subject.

 

[ref]

A new video of Rodriguez has come out

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=6397746163648527211

It gives an explanation why Willie was late that day. It was such a beautiful day, he wanted to stay home. So he called his supervisor and wanted to have a sick day off.

His current explanation of what happened in the basement:

BOOM! An explosion so loud, that pushes upwards in the air. The walls cracked, the floor(?) ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated, everybody started screaming in horror. In pure horror, because we didn't know what it was. And the first thing that comes to my mind, is that a generator blew up in the basement, in the mechanical room.

A far cry from a rumble, I would say.

Again, he says 7 seconds separated the basement explosion and the impact on top.

He goes on to say:

I don't know if it was a bomb or not. I am not an expert in explosives. It sounded like one. It made the noise like one. It created a destruction level, that I wouldn't expect anything else to be, but that, was that a bomb, I have no idea what it was.

He also mentions once again saving hundreds of people.

 

[RedIbis]

A reminder: this thread is about William Rodriguez.

Indeed and that is why I took another look at your paper and have the following questions:

I’ve been holding off posting this because I was waiting on some important information.

The last part of this long post is the email a friend of mine received from Rodriguez himself. My friend is able to correspond with Mr. Rodriguez, and he was kind enough to respond. I thought Mark and the rest might find it interesting.

But first, if these questions can be addressed. I’ll post the email response in a second post so it doesn’t get too long.


First, how do you know Mr. Rodriguez "was only a hundred feet from the collapse”? What is the source for this?

Doesn't the account you include in your paper of Mr. Arturo Griffith contradict your premise?

If Mr. Griffith is being pulled out of the elevator after being injured by some type of explosion, and then a fireball comes down the elevator shaft, how could the source of the fireball and what injured Mr. Griffith be from the same event?

In fact, it substantiates Mr. Rodriguez's testimony because obviously some significant amount of time had to pass while Mr. Griffith was "trapped" and "unconscious" and while rescuers "had to follow his voice."

 

[RedIbis]

This is the aforementioned email. I think we got a bit more than we bargained for because it appears Mr. Rodriguez is quite familiar with Gravy's paper.

Here it is:

“They have been going crazy since I used all of Roberts’ negative attacks to get publicity, turn the families of 9/11 against him and then go around the world based on my exposure, and hate mails from the jref crowd. Their envy and desperation of not being able to have me on their 2 cent TV show is laughable most of the times. This week alone, with C-span showing my testimony nationwide repeatedly, we were able to reach more than12 million people on one channel alone. When I point this out to them, they ignore it. I make fun of him at the beginning of my presentation on TV. Roberts kept quiet about it. In his desperation , he sent emails to the organizers of the event and tried to imply that I was antisemitic and a
holocaust denier because I have made presentations in places where people with these views have been present. He fails to mention that I have openly
exposed this antisemites and have spoken around the world about their stupidity.He fails to mention how I get attacked by them and have been called "Zionist controlled" ( wwww.Iamthewitness.com ).

I placed a bet with Ronald Weick about how many people we could reach separately in 3 weeks period and he totally ignored it. Their tactic is to attack, to get a reaction, once they get your reaction, they engage you to their questioning."

William Rodriguez in an email to a friend of mine.

 

[Civilized Worm]

So no explanation as to why he changed his story then? He sure loves to brag about the publicity he's getting.