William Rodriguez Supports The Official Story

[gumboot]

I have just been watching Mr Rodriguez' 50 minute presentation at the 9/11 Truth Movement convention.

(By the way, he's an excellent public speaker).

Just after 33.30, he describes the impact on WTC2. What's interesting is what comes immediately after it:

...and all the sudden we hear boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and on the radio "we lost 65, we lost 65", meaning that the 65th floor collapse floor by floor by floor by floor, all the way to the 44th floor, the sky lobby. Five flights away. And I start screaming "We gotta go up, we gotta go up".

This reflects the New York Times report in their interactive here that between 1000 and 1009 a fireman (possibly from Ladder 3) reports a collapse on a floor in the 60's - the highest floor reached in WTC1.

This further collaborates the reports from people trapped in the towers away from the impact zone that floors were sagging and collapsing.

This reinforces my suspicions that the internal damage to the WTC prior to collapse was much more severe than appears from the outside.

-Gumboot

 

[Mancman]

I don't see any reason why floors below the impact point would have collapsed when the fire was several floors above.

Two people who were on the 64th floor of WTC1 around 10:00 survived. They were on the 13th floor when the building came down - Genelle Guzman and Pasquale Buzzelli. (Though Buzzelli recalls that it was the 22nd floor.) The floors can't have been that bad.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/07/smn.04.html

PASQUALE BUZZELI: Yes, that's correct. I initially called her right when I got to the 64th floor and then afterwards I called her probably about closer to 10:00. About a quarter to ten, before all of us started our descent down stairway B of World Trade Center.

----------------
PASQUALE BUZZELLI: Yes, basically, it was a little after 10:00. We started our descent. We made it down to probably in the mid-40s when we encountered some firemen. They were just exhausted from battling.

 

[gumboot]

I don't see any reason why floors below the impact point would have collapsed when the fire was several floors above.

Two people who were on the 64th floor of WTC1 around 10:00 survived. They were on the 13th floor when the building came down - Genelle Guzman and Pasquale Buzzelli. (Though Buzzelli recalls that it was the 22nd floor.) The floors can't have been that bad.

That may be, but we now have collaborating reports specific to these floors.

Something worth considering.

Listening to Mr. Rodriguez' summary of his experiences that day, despite the Conspiracy Theory claims he has made, I see no reason to disbelieve the events he experienced.

The only thing I would propose is that what he records as the impact of UA175 on WTC2 causing WTC1 to sway was actually WTC2 collapsing.

This would match the 65th floor collapse event with the FDNY report from the fireman in ladder 3, and it also makes sense in relation to his other timeline of events - according to him immediately after this collapse he headed down, collected the person on the wheelchair and carried them outside. At this point WTC1 collapsed.

PRIOR to this collapse event, Mr Rodriguez rescued 15 people from the basement, exited the building, went to WTC3, returned to WTC1 and rescued two people from a stuck elevator, and then climbed 39 floors.

For his timeline to be correct (and the swaying to have been the impact of UA175) he did all of the prior activities in an astounding 17 minutes, yet it took him an hour and 25 minutes to descend those 39 floors and exit the building.

This seems highly unlikely.

If he was actually at the 39th floor at 0959, and the swaying was from WTC2 collapsing, I think this all makes much more sense - it took him a little over an hour to do the activities he describes before this, and a further half hour to descend from the 39th floor, helping with the person in the wheelchair and exiting the building.

In terms of Pasquale Buzzelli's testimony, that of course has to be weighed against these ones, but I don't think they're necessarily conflicting.

Buzzelli's office was on the 64th floor.

Obviously any collapse at these levels would not be caused by damage at debris at these levels, but by progressing failures from above.

Thus at just before 10:00am - ten minutes before these collapses were reported - it's possible the 64th floor was still entirely intact. It may be, by a terrifying stroke of luck, that these people left the floors minutes before debris from above caused them to fail.

Of course it's also possible that the floors didn't fail at all. But then why did the New York Times report that the FDNY communications reported a collapse in the 60's at this time? Why does Mr Rodriguez collaborate this story with his own account which includes the radio transmission AND actual sounds of the collapse?

-Gumboot

 

[Gravy]

There was an unconfirmed report of a partial collapse in the 60's – some say the 65th floor. What Rodriguez heard was the collapse of the south tower. I'll have more on this in a day or two.

 

[The Doc]

Rodriguez also made some similar claims about the 34th floor of the North Tower. Completely empty floor, no access floor, loud noises, machinery etc. supposedly being used for demolition. I have a source that refutes those claims very nicely.

It may be a bit off topic though, seeing as this topic is regarding the 65th floor. I'll post it if the OP doesn't mind.

 

[Gravy]

Rodriguez also made some similar claims about the 34th floor of the North Tower. Completely empty floor, no access floor, loud noises, machinery etc. supposedly being used for demolition. I have a source that refutes those claims very nicely.

It may be a bit off topic though, seeing as this topic is regarding the 65th floor. I'll post it if the OP doesn't mind.

All you diligent researchers are so trying to steal my thunder! I've got a lot on all the WR subjects that have been discussed in the past few days. Just trying to get it organized and online.

 

[ref]

All you diligent researchers are so trying to steal my thunder! I've got a lot on all the WR subjects that have been discussed in the past few days. Just trying to get it organized and online.

We are waiting

 

[gumboot]

Okay, I will still the clunkity-clunk of my brain until I get some more information from Gravy...



-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

Okay, I will still the clunkity-clunk of my brain until I get some more information from Gravy...



-Gumboot

Clunkety Clunk Syndrome:
A neurological disorder involving the rapid expansion and contraction of the cerebrum in response to repetitive supratentorial insult of the "truth" variety.
Symptoms include tangental thought, word salad, frothing at the mouth, and repeatedly uttering the phrase..."you want the truth, you cant handle the truth".

The cure...one large helping of logic and evidence of the "Gravy" variety.


TAM

 

[Mr. Skinny]

This further collaborates corrobates the reports from people trapped in the towers away from the impact zone that floors were sagging and collapsing.

[pedant mode]
collaborate:

to work together and cooperate on a project.
www.artsconnected.org/artsnetmn/spaces/vocabulary.html
[SIZE=-1]a working relationship involving critical individual responsibility and group responsibility with collaborators adding to the value of work of others. (See also assist, contribute, participate.)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.ee.wits.ac.za/~ecsa/gen/g-04.htm[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]To unite individuals together in a formal or non-formal group; to take a partnership in a project by teaming up to share ideas for the greater purpose of a common goal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.karinscourtyard.com/arkmanual/glossary.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]work together on a common enterprise of project; "The soprano and the pianist did not get together very well"; "We joined forces with another research group" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]cooperate as a traitor; "he collaborated with the Nazis when they occupied Paris" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]corroborate:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]A hypothesis is corroborated if it is subjected to an experimental test which cannot manage to falsify it. (See FALSIFICATION) (MP) CORROBOREE It is said that the word is the English version of the Australian Aboriginal term "carib-berie" or ceremony ritualized in song and dance. Traditionally, corroborrees re-enacted the Dreamtime or Creation stories and were also activated for sacred, law education or war-like purposes. ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/biodict.htm[SIZE=-1]To strengthen with other evidence, to make more certain.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.austin.cc.tx.us/audit/Glossary/LetterC.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]confirm: establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts; "his story confirmed my doubts"; "The evidence supports the defendant" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]validate: give evidence for [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]support with evidence or authority or make more certain or confirm; "The stories and claims were born out by the evidence" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn [/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1][/pedant mode][/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[T.A.M.]

[pedant mode]
collaborate:

to work together and cooperate on a project.
www.artsconnected.org/artsnetmn/spaces/vocabulary.html
[SIZE=-1]a working relationship involving critical individual responsibility and group responsibility with collaborators adding to the value of work of others. (See also assist, contribute, participate.)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.ee.wits.ac.za/~ecsa/gen/g-04.htm[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]To unite individuals together in a formal or non-formal group; to take a partnership in a project by teaming up to share ideas for the greater purpose of a common goal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.karinscourtyard.com/arkmanual/glossary.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]work together on a common enterprise of project; "The soprano and the pianist did not get together very well"; "We joined forces with another research group" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]cooperate as a traitor; "he collaborated with the Nazis when they occupied Paris" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]corroborate:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]A hypothesis is corroborated if it is subjected to an experimental test which cannot manage to falsify it. (See FALSIFICATION) (MP) CORROBOREE It is said that the word is the English version of the Australian Aboriginal term "carib-berie" or ceremony ritualized in song and dance. Traditionally, corroborrees re-enacted the Dreamtime or Creation stories and were also activated for sacred, law education or war-like purposes. ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/biodict.htm[SIZE=-1]To strengthen with other evidence, to make more certain.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.austin.cc.tx.us/audit/Glossary/LetterC.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]confirm: establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts; "his story confirmed my doubts"; "The evidence supports the defendant" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]validate: give evidence for [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]support with evidence or authority or make more certain or confirm; "The stories and claims were born out by the evidence" [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn [/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1][/pedant mode][/SIZE][/SIZE]

well if you are going to correct him, you should at least get it right, spelling wise, when you edited his quote...lol

ie. what is corrobate?

TAM

 

[Mancman]

That may be, but we now have collaborating reports specific to these floors.

Something worth considering.

Listening to Mr. Rodriguez' summary of his experiences that day, despite the Conspiracy Theory claims he has made, I see no reason to disbelieve the events he experienced.

The only thing I would propose is that what he records as the impact of UA175 on WTC2 causing WTC1 to sway was actually WTC2 collapsing.

This would match the 65th floor collapse event with the FDNY report from the fireman in ladder 3, and it also makes sense in relation to his other timeline of events - according to him immediately after this collapse he headed down, collected the person on the wheelchair and carried them outside. At this point WTC1 collapsed.

PRIOR to this collapse event, Mr Rodriguez rescued 15 people from the basement, exited the building, went to WTC3, returned to WTC1 and rescued two people from a stuck elevator, and then climbed 39 floors.

For his timeline to be correct (and the swaying to have been the impact of UA175) he did all of the prior activities in an astounding 17 minutes, yet it took him an hour and 25 minutes to descend those 39 floors and exit the building.

This seems highly unlikely.

If he was actually at the 39th floor at 0959, and the swaying was from WTC2 collapsing, I think this all makes much more sense - it took him a little over an hour to do the activities he describes before this, and a further half hour to descend from the 39th floor, helping with the person in the wheelchair and exiting the building.

In terms of Pasquale Buzzelli's testimony, that of course has to be weighed against these ones, but I don't think they're necessarily conflicting.

Buzzelli's office was on the 64th floor.

Obviously any collapse at these levels would not be caused by damage at debris at these levels, but by progressing failures from above.

Thus at just before 10:00am - ten minutes before these collapses were reported - it's possible the 64th floor was still entirely intact. It may be, by a terrifying stroke of luck, that these people left the floors minutes before debris from above caused them to fail.

Of course it's also possible that the floors didn't fail at all. But then why did the New York Times report that the FDNY communications reported a collapse in the 60's at this time? Why does Mr Rodriguez collaborate this story with his own account which includes the radio transmission AND actual sounds of the collapse?

-Gumboot

But we don't know if the 'collapse in the 60s' refers to a floor or a person.

Also note that none of this damage is visible in any photograph. If floors had pancaked down from the burning floors at ~95 all the way to 65 or 44 a full 20 minutes before the collapse, there would certainly be some external indication, and probably seismic readings.

Then we have to ask why the collapse did not precede to ground level at this point, and we have to explain how the perimeter columns did not buckle after losing lateral support on 30/50 floors, which according to Euler's buckling formula would mean the columns could support 900/2500 times less weight.


Do we know the precise time the 'collapse in the 60s' statement was radioed?

Buzzelli states his group started to descend 'a little after 10:00'. The book '102 Minutes' (the interactive NY Times site is the online accompaniment to this book) states that they left the 64th floor at 10:12 (pg 256).

The book and website also state that someone at Carr Futures on floor 92 made a call at 10:18am. This was the lowest burning floor. So if this didn't start the premature partial pancaking, it must have been the non burning 91st floor.

None of this makes any sense personally.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

All you diligent researchers are so trying to steal my thunder!

Your powers are WEAK, old man!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

well if you are going to correct him, you should at least get it right, spelling wise, when you edited his quote...lol

ie. what is corrobate?

TAM

Dang! I hate when that happens.

I usually don't bother to correct someone unless I know they they are the type of poster that is likely to appreciate the correction, if you know what I mean. Gumboot is usually an excellent writer, so I took the time to correct him.

Screwing up the correction, as you have pointed out, is the pits. Thanks, TAM.

BTW, you spell ridiculous wrong all the time.

ridiculous:

pathetic: inspiring scornful pity; "how silly an ardent and unsuccessful wooer can be especially if he is getting on in years"- Dashiell Hammett
absurd: incongruous;inviting ridicule; "the absurd excuse that the dog ate his homework"; "that's a cockeyed idea"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical answer"; "a contribution so small as to be laughable"; "it is ludicrous to call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather dull children was ridiculous"
farcical: broadly or extravagantly humorous; resembling farce; "the wild farcical exuberance of a clown"; "ludicrous green hair"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

[Calcas]

Why do people always spell it "red...?"

 

[The Doc]

I won't steal your thunder Gravy

I was assuming that you already had the sources anyway and have already debunked the claim anyway. I wouldn't expect any less from your stellar research and publications.

 

[T.A.M.]

Dang! I hate when that happens.

I usually don't bother to correct someone unless I know they they are the type of poster that is likely to appreciate the correction, if you know what I mean. Gumboot is usually an excellent writer, so I took the time to correct him.

Screwing up the correction, as you have pointed out, is the pits. Thanks, TAM.

BTW, you spell ridiculous wrong all the time.

ridiculous:

pathetic: inspiring scornful pity; "how silly an ardent and unsuccessful wooer can be especially if he is getting on in years"- Dashiell Hammett
absurd: incongruous;inviting ridicule; "the absurd excuse that the dog ate his homework"; "that's a cockeyed idea"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical answer"; "a contribution so small as to be laughable"; "it is ludicrous to call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather dull children was ridiculous"
farcical: broadly or extravagantly humorous; resembling farce; "the wild farcical exuberance of a clown"; "ludicrous green hair"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

SO what is your excuse in correcting me. My spelling is always attrocious...see...so don't be rEdiculous.

TAM

Edit: you should see my hand writing...they teach us poor hand writing in med school...it has to be illegible to graduate.

 

[~enigma~]

you should see my hand writing...they teach us poor hand writing in med school...it has to be illegible to graduate

True and they teach you to write sloppy and illegible especially drug names that you can't spell

 

[T.A.M.]

yah, well have you seen how many drugs there are in the CPS (Canadian Drug Guide basically). You try to remember the spelling for all of them...lol

TAM

 

[gumboot]

But we don't know if the 'collapse in the 60s' refers to a floor or a person.

Well, Mr Rodriguez quotes the radio transmission as "We lost 65, we lots 65".

Also note that none of this damage is visible in any photograph. If floors had pancaked down from the burning floors at ~95 all the way to 65 or 44 a full 20 minutes before the collapse, there would certainly be some external indication, and probably seismic readings.

I don't necessarily think that's true. Bear in mind, there's no reason to think the entire floor pancaked. Debris could punch though in particular areas, couldn't it? Those floors had a lot of unsupported space.

Then we have to ask why the collapse did not precede to ground level at this point, and we have to explain how the perimeter columns did not buckle after losing lateral support on 30/50 floors, which according to Euler's buckling formula would mean the columns could support 900/2500 times less weight.

Well I'm looking from the point of view of partial floor collapses, not complete pancakes. But we'll wait to hear what Gravy has to say.

Do we know the precise time the 'collapse in the 60s' statement was radioed?

Buzzelli states his group started to descend 'a little after 10:00'. The book '102 Minutes' (the interactive NY Times site is the online accompaniment to this book) states that they left the 64th floor at 10:12 (pg 256).

"Some time not long after ten" is about all we have for the collapse radio transmission.

None of this makes any sense personally.

Agreed. That's why I'm trying to make sense of it.

-Gumboot

P.S. Thank you for the correction Mr Skinny.