• 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

PhantomWolf said:
Fireball #1 associated with crash

Fireball #2 delayed from fuel igniting after crash

Don't you hate it when your own quote proves you wrong.....
Click to expand...
Nothing but exotic high explosives could have produced this effect. It bears all the signs of Double-Delay Super Hushaboomtm.
 
Gravy said:
Nothing but exotic high explosives could have produced this effect. It bears all the signs of Double-Delay Super Hushaboomtm.
Click to expand...

Oh no. It looks like Gravy will soon be getting a visit a certain cat for exposing that secret.
 
DavidJames said:
Yes and that's a key point that Red, despite being asked repeatedly, refuses to address. Red seems to be only interested in scoring some feeble points.
Click to expand...

whoa, uh the word pedantic meaning, overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, is not accurate in describing Reds calling out of the claim that Rodriguez said that he saw fireballs.

here was Gravies statement...

"Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. "

This is FALSE, and cannot be backed up with any facts. Rodriguez has never said anything of the sort. EVER! and if you feel he has, I dare you to provide proof of it. I will even bet you money. It did not happen. EVER! Since supposedly he said it on TV, then it would not be to hard to prove? would it?

This is not "nitpicking" it is calling gravy on a lie. A flat out lie. now you attack Red's character saying he is nitpicking, but the fact is he is showing the lies of the author of the article for which the topic was created. instead of actually debating the article, you have resorted to attacking RedIbis. This is a logical fallacy, and proves that RedIbis is winning the debate. Since he has stuck to the facts, and not to logical fallacies.
 
FatesWebb said:
whoa, uh the word pedantic meaning, overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, is not accurate in describing Reds calling out of the claim that Rodriguez said that he saw fireballs.

here was Gravies statement...

"Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. "

This is FALSE, and cannot be backed up with any facts. Rodriguez has never said anything of the sort. EVER! and if you feel he has, I dare you to provide proof of it. I will even bet you money. It did not happen. EVER! Since supposedly he said it on TV, then it would not be to hard to prove? would it?

This is not "nitpicking" it is calling gravy on a lie. A flat out lie. now you attack Red's character saying he is nitpicking, but the fact is he is showing the lies of the author of the article for which the topic was created. instead of actually debating the article, you have resorted to attacking RedIbis. This is a logical fallacy, and proves that RedIbis is winning the debate. Since he has stuck to the facts, and not to logical fallacies.
Click to expand...
CNN transcript.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html

And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance. And I came back running into the building.
Click to expand...

Somebody's lied but I don't think it was Gravy
 
RedIbis said:
Sure about that? Where in that quote does Rodriguez say it was a jet fuel fire ball?

That's been the point all along.
Click to expand...

What else could have caused a fireball that burned but didn't kill by the blast?

Before you say explosives, watch the video below and compare to the fireball and the compression waves.

 
RedIbis said:
Sure about that? Where in that quote does Rodriguez say it was a jet fuel fire ball?

That's been the point all along.
Click to expand...


What else could produce a ball of fire? Certainly not explosives...

Well, maybe Hollywood explosives... And I hear Hollywood is run by Jews... Hmm...

No, seriously. Process of elimination. What else could it be?
 
Rodriguez statement to NIST:

"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."
Click to expand...


Rodriguez: "It is a well known fact that I was believing the government official story early on."

Rodriguez: “From day one, I have told the same story, never straying from the truth."

Oops.
 
FatesWebb said:
whoa, uh the word pedantic meaning, overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, is not accurate in describing Reds calling out of the claim that Rodriguez said that he saw fireballs.

here was Gravies statement...

"Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004. "

This is FALSE, and cannot be backed up with any facts. Rodriguez has never said anything of the sort. EVER! and if you feel he has, I dare you to provide proof of it. I will even bet you money. It did not happen. EVER! Since supposedly he said it on TV, then it would not be to hard to prove? would it?

This is not "nitpicking" it is calling gravy on a lie. A flat out lie. now you attack Red's character saying he is nitpicking, but the fact is he is showing the lies of the author of the article for which the topic was created. instead of actually debating the article, you have resorted to attacking RedIbis. This is a logical fallacy, and proves that RedIbis is winning the debate. Since he has stuck to the facts, and not to logical fallacies.
Click to expand...
DGM said:
CNN transcript.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html
Somebody's lied but I don't think it was Gravy
Click to expand...
Gravy said:
Rodriguez statement to NIST:

Rodriguez: "It is a well known fact that I was believing the government official story early on."

Rodriguez: “From day one, I have told the same story, never straying from the truth."

Oops.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you will disappear again for awhile.
 
Gravy said:
Rodriguez statement to NIST:




Rodriguez: "It is a well known fact that I was believing the government official story early on."

Rodriguez: “From day one, I have told the same story, never straying from the truth."

Oops.
Click to expand...

Your analysis is often lacking and you try to prove your point by association or assumption.

These two quotes do not contradict each other. "The government story" that Rodriguez admits to accepting (as any of us did) never included Rodriguez's personal experience, which Rodriguez has not had to change.

Secondly, not a single quote that you've pulled, nor any one attributed to Rodriguez here, includes the phrase "jet fuel fire ball" that you falsely suggest he is reporting.

Let me say here, since several people are making the same assumption, you are concluding that Rodriguez witnessed jet fuel, but he didn't describe it that way, and you have no evidence that's what created it.

With all of the material in the tower, the generators, and other equipment, do you really seriously think there is no other possibility?

Sounds like someone came to a conclusion and then developed a seemingly plausible explanation, which is an interesting theory, but you can stop claiming that Rodriguez ever reported a "jet fuel fireball."
 
RedIbis said:
Sounds like someone came to a conclusion and then developed a seemingly plausible explanation, which is an interesting theory, but you can stop claiming that Rodriguez ever reported a "jet fuel fireball."
Click to expand...

But it's so much easier than typing "reported a fireball that is completely consistent with jet fuel, which we know was present in abundance, and utterly incompatible with any conventional explosives, for which there is no evidence anyway, but let's not get carried away, 'cos if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes good in orange sauce, it might still be a wankel rotary engine."
 
RedIbis said:
Your analysis is often lacking and you try to prove your point by association or assumption.

These two quotes do not contradict each other. "The government story" that Rodriguez admits to accepting (as any of us did) never included Rodriguez's personal experience, which Rodriguez has not had to change.

Secondly, not a single quote that you've pulled, nor any one attributed to Rodriguez here, includes the phrase "jet fuel fire ball" that you falsely suggest he is reporting.

Let me say here, since several people are making the same assumption, you are concluding that Rodriguez witnessed jet fuel, but he didn't describe it that way, and you have no evidence that's what created it.

With all of the material in the tower, the generators, and other equipment, do you really seriously think there is no other possibility?

Sounds like someone came to a conclusion and then developed a seemingly plausible explanation, which is an interesting theory, but you can stop claiming that Rodriguez ever reported a "jet fuel fireball."
Click to expand...
Would you mind pointing out in Gravy's paper that he says Willie said that (or claims). I can't seem to find where Gravy lies.
 
RedIbis said:
Your analysis is often lacking and you try to prove your point by association or assumption.

These two quotes do not contradict each other. "The government story" that Rodriguez admits to accepting (as any of us did) never included Rodriguez's personal experience, which Rodriguez has not had to change.

Secondly, not a single quote that you've pulled, nor any one attributed to Rodriguez here, includes the phrase "jet fuel fire ball" that you falsely suggest he is reporting.

Let me say here, since several people are making the same assumption, you are concluding that Rodriguez witnessed jet fuel, but he didn't describe it that way, and you have no evidence that's what created it.

With all of the material in the tower, the generators, and other equipment, do you really seriously think there is no other possibility?

Sounds like someone came to a conclusion and then developed a seemingly plausible explanation, which is an interesting theory, but you can stop claiming that Rodriguez ever reported a "jet fuel fireball."
Click to expand...



I think it's high time you gave us a reason to believe that the fireball could something other than a jet-fuel fireball.
 
RedIbis said:
It's high time to stop putting words in Rodriguez's mouth.
Click to expand...
Explain what kind of explosive produces a ball of fire that you can get close enough to cause burns but somehow won't blow you to smithereens. Can you do that RedIbis? If not, why on earth would you not believe it was from the jet fuel present in large quantities from the plane? Are you a no-planer now?
 
WildCat said:
Explain what kind of explosive produces a ball of fire that you can get close enough to cause burns but somehow won't blow you to smithereens. Can you do that RedIbis? If not, why on earth would you not believe it was from the jet fuel present in large quantities from the plane? Are you a no-planer now?
Click to expand...

Wildcat:

Actually, A nuke would do. Much higher heat-to-energy ratio than conventional explosives.

But that type of explosive would have been rather, erm, obvious if used (contrary to some troother beliefs).
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
It's high time to stop putting words in Rodriguez's mouth.
Click to expand...


Evasion noted. If you can't suggest a plausible way for the fireballs to be caused by something other than the jet fuel, then you don't have much of a case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom