A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

[ref]

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

He constantly claims he has been misquoted by the media.

How can you be misquoted, when talking about a rumble like moving furniture? It sure is a long leap from walls cracking and ceiling falling on top of you and an explosion that pushes you upwards. His rumble comment can simply not be a misquote of that magnitude.

Another fine example is his jet fuel comment. Has he been misquoted, when he talked about jet fuel? Someone just made that story up? I seriously doubt it. Once again, he can not have been misquoted that badly.

Conclusion is, he has said what he is quoted of saying. Claiming he has been misquoted doesn't change the fact, that he cannot have been misquoted as badly as he claims.

 

[ref]

I will quote you, so Mark can see your post.

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."

 

[MikeW]

This is the aforementioned email.

So basically "you're all jealous", "I can reach more people than you" and "I'm doing important things all around the world". Thanks, RedIbis. Mr Rodriguez reveals more of himself than he realises, I think.

 

[Gravy]

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

If you're going to quote me, then quote me: "He was only about 100 feet from the north tower when it collapsed." The source is William Rodriguez. Ask him.

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

No.

Since I have you on ignore, do not address questions to me. I gave you more than enough opportunities to make your case with facts and logic. You repeatedly blew it by spewing nonsense and denialism.

 

[ref]

So basically "you're all jealous", "I can reach more people than you" and "I'm doing important things all around the world". Thanks, RedIbis. Mr Rodriguez reveals more of himself than he realises, I think.

That is his usual act. He makes sure everyone knows how many contacts he has, how many performances he has given, how many people he has reached, which TV networks broadcast his comments and how many family members he knows. That's his nature.

 

[RedIbis]

I will quote you, so Mark can see your post.

I don't think he appreciates that as much as I do.

 

[RedIbis]

If you're going to quote me, then quote me: "He was only about 100 feet from the north tower when it collapsed." The source is William Rodriguez. Ask him.

No.

Since I have you on ignore, do not address questions to me. I gave you more than enough opportunities to make your case with facts and logic. You repeatedly blew it by spewing nonsense and denialism.

Mark, (but not really addressed to Mark since he has me on ignore and has forbidden me from addressing him directly)

Where does Rodriguez say this? Do you have the source? If you simply say, Rodriguez told me or Rodriquez said it, then it's hearsay, and not a valid way to develop a paper.

Now that my questions are logical and based on fact, you will refuse to answer them?

 

[DGM]

Mark, (but not really addressed to Mark since he has me on ignore and has forbidden me from addressing him directly)

Where does Rodriguez say this? Do you have the source? If you simply say, Rodriguez told me or Rodriquez said it, then it's hearsay, and not a valid way to develop a paper.
Now that my questions are logical and based on fact, you will refuse to answer them?

Doesn't that make all interviews by anyone invalid?

 

[T.A.M.]

RedIbis:

That is not true. If I am told by a murderer that he killed someone, it is not hearsay, it is a confession. Likewise, if Rodriguez tells Mark something regarding Rodriguez's own location or actions that day, it is not hearsay, it is direct testimony. Just because Mark is not a NY Times reporter, and just because Mark has not printed it in a magazine, does not make it hearsay.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis:

That is not true. If I am told by a murderer that he killed someone, it is not hearsay, it is a confession. Likewise, if Rodriguez tells Mark something regarding Rodriguez's own location or actions that day, it is not hearsay, it is direct testimony. Just because Mark is not a NY Times reporter, and just because Mark has not printed it in a magazine, does not make it hearsay.

TAM

Gravy said the source is Rodriguez. Where? When? What interview? What were Rodriguez's words? Or do we just take Gravy's assessment at face value?

See the problem here?

 

[RedIbis]

Doesn't that make all interviews by anyone invalid?

No because there is a format for sourcing even personal interviews. They take place at a certain time, a certain place and are usually taped so that the quotes can be verified.

C'mon guys, Gravy wrote a scathing paper, I'm just asking him to back up some of his major assertions.

 

[DGM]

No because there is a format for sourcing even personal interviews. They take place at a certain time, a certain place and are usually taped so that the quotes can be verified.

C'mon guys, Gravy wrote a scathing paper, I'm just asking him to back up some of his major assertions.

I was questioning your definition of hearsay.

If you simply say, Rodriguez told me or Rodriquez said it, then it's hearsay, and not a valid way to develop a paper.

Your question has been quoted and only Mark can answer the source question.

 

[RedIbis]

Your question has been quoted and only Mark can answer the source question.

Does anyone else find this a juvenile way to conduct a discussion? To my knowledge no one else has put me on ignore. I'm not rude, use profanity, or in any other way break the rules. My questions are specific and valid.

So what gives?

 

[T.A.M.]

Gravy said the source is Rodriguez. Where? When? What interview? What were Rodriguez's words? Or do we just take Gravy's assessment at face value?

See the problem here?

My impression was that Rodriguez had said this to Mark himself. If not, then yes providing the source or Rodriguez work would be appropriate for validation. If Rodriguez said this to Mark himself, then it is up to you whether you trust the source, just as it would be if he said it to Wolf Blitzer (CNN).

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Does anyone else find this a juvenile way to conduct a discussion? To my knowledge no one else has put me on ignore. I'm not rude, use profanity, or in any other way break the rules. My questions are specific and valid.

So what gives?

Perhaps juvenile is a bit much, but obtuse, for sure.

However, Gravy has said he does not wish to converse with you, and you continue. My suggestion, if you do not wish this obtuse line of conversation to continue, you simply give up trying to communicate with someone who has purposely put you on ignore.

just a suggestion.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

My impression was that Rodriguez had said this to Mark himself. If not, then yes providing the source or Rodriguez work would be appropriate for validation. If Rodriguez said this to Mark himself, then it is up to you whether you trust the source, just as it would be if he said it to Wolf Blitzer (CNN).

TAM

Whether it's investigative journalism or academic research, such assertions require sourcing. This is a simple matter. The point itself is minor, but the implications are huge because if Mark didn't cite a reference for this, what else has he asserted without documentation?

The stickier issue is that the account of Arturo Griffith contradicts the premise of Mark's paper.

 

[RedIbis]

Perhaps juvenile is a bit much, but obtuse, for sure.

However, Gravy has said he does not wish to converse with you, and you continue. My suggestion, if you do not wish this obtuse line of conversation to continue, you simply give up trying to communicate with someone who has purposely put you on ignore.

just a suggestion.

TAM

I might give up on communicating with Mark directly, but I won't stop scrutinizing his work, asking good questions, and pressing these important points.

Don't you find it strange that Mark put me on ignore, especially since he set up a thread addressing me directly?

 

[Par]

Don't you find it strange that Mark put me on ignore, especially since he set up a thread addressing me directly?

Well, in saying that, you seem to be attempting to create the impression that he started a thread in which he intended to communicate with you. This is not the case. You frequently allude to significant errors in the 9/11 Commission Report. However, you haven’t yet been able to list any. He set up the thread in question specifically for you to do so.

More generally, I don’t know when or why he started to ignore you. So, it’s hard to say whether it’s strange or not.

 

[Gravy]

I took RedIbis off ignore when I started that thread, and told him he was going back on ignore after he declined to address the OP.

Any more derailing posts about my putting him on ignore will be reported to the moderators.

 

[SDC]

Mr (Ms?) R.Ibis, you should probably read the paper Mr Gravy posted about Mr Rodriguez: http://911stories.googlepages.com/home I assume that is the one. It's headed William Rodriguez, Escape Artist and I found out via G's OP on the "Gravysites" thread. Presumably it includes his sources and documentation.

With regard to claims of "Hearsay," I can't speak in legal terms, but I can speak as a formally trained (academic, PhD, published) historian. If Fred says "Barney said X to me," and Fred is regarded as a trustworthy source, it will probably be acceptable (within limits). But if Fred says "Barney said that the Mayor of Bedrock said X to him," we are stretching it further; we have to consider whether both Fred and Barney are regarded as trustworthy, there are issues of mutual comprehension (do Fred, Barney, and the Mayor all speak the same language), and so on; a degrees of separation kind of thing.

Anyhow, please read Mr Gravy's posted papers and perhaps you'll find your sources.

Thanks.