Why will no one listen to William Rodriguez's story (more importantly, why did the 9/11 Commission

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
perhaps you should see all the reports that the 9/11 comission refused to listen to. He's not the only one saying they heard explosions before the towers collapse.

Ok, who else was in the building and is currently reporting explosions?

Are you in someway involved in the Bush coverup of 9/11?

I'm not at liberty to answer that.

Well a WTC security guard can shed further light on the subject. Daria Coard who has come forward saying that there was a mysterious powerdown on the weekend before 9/11, sniffer dogs oddly removed.

No security cameras operating because of the mysterious powerdown for around 48 hours.

That would have been enough time for a Mossad team to go in and plant cutter charges at all the key sections of the building.

Even mentioned something about explosions aswell in the inial attack. I've heard this all on television news so I'll try to find a good link for it. Or you can look into that yourself if you want to. I doubt you will since skeptics rarely look in that amount of detail.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

So howard lets get this straight.

In the second collision on video you can clearly see all of the fuel in the airplane explod on impact and much of it outside the building.

So I guess the first plane is the exception then.

Perhaps you should look into the photos taken of the impact afterwards where you see people standing in the hole and looking outside. According to you these people should have been covered in gasoline and on fire.

But of course the fires were supposedly burning at 3000 degrees so those people wouldn't have been able to stand there and look out the big hole in the first place.



[edit on 10-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

news so I'll try to find a good link for it.

Good idea, go ahead and do that.

Or you can look into that yourself if you want to.

To tell you the truth, I am going to be too busy deleting google links to the original reports of chemical sensors that showed plastique in the debris.

I doubt you will since skeptics rarely look in that amount of detail.

Rather, its been my experience that overly credulous and naive people just accept uncritically anything that sounds exciting to them, without evidence, or an ability to present such evidence.

Anway, I'll be glad to review the evidence when you present it.

"...Rather, its been my experience that overly credulous and naive people just accept uncritically anything that sounds exciting to them, without evidence, or an ability to present such evidence..."

Ah I see. Like CNN.

You know on second thought I'll let you look into the security guard coming forward for yourself. If you look into it for yourself then it will show you are uniquely interested and open minded about finding out the true facts of 9/11.

Otherwise you'll just stick with being spoonfed info from corporate media which has proven itself to be unreliable at best.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]

And lets not forget Bush said it was his old friend Osama Bin Laden who attacked us before the day was over, before Osama took credit for it.

Does no one wonder why we paid 69million to Osama in June 2001?

Does no one wonder why out of all the nations who listened to the warnings from Germany and Israel America didn't? Well, never found out because when the warnings were given to Bush he was on vacation, more then a month before the attacks.

Except for guys like Nygdan and others who seem to be working for Bush to just deny anything that doesn't worship Bush. I wonder how much they get paid, I could say "WHo are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes." for money.

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
So howard lets get this straight.

In the second collision on video you can clearly see all of the fuel in the airplane explod on impact and much of it outside the building.

What proof do you offer to support your contention that ALL of the fuel exited the building and burned up on the outside?

In the second impact, the fuel from the left wing tanks would have hit the core area pretty much straight on.

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
Perhaps you should look into the photos taken of the impact afterwards where you see people standing in the hole and looking outside. According to you these people should have been covered in gasoline and on fire.

No, I did not state that. Please don’t try to put words into my mouth.

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
But of course the fires were supposedly burning at 3000 degrees so those people wouldn't have been able to stand there and look out the big hole in the first place.

How come they weren’t looking out the hole on the other side of the building? Maybe because it was already on fire. How come the person isn’t looking out the hole for more than a few minutes? Maybe because the fires were spreading.

A typical structure fire can reach temperatures in excess of 1000 C. Once the fireproofing was knocked off the trusses, It would only have been necessary to expose the floor trusses to a typical fire for about 20 minutes or so before they began to fail.

It has become very clear to me that a few posters on this site are paid respondents or just morons. I haven't decided which yet !!!!...currently my money is with the morons!...Honestly, if you can't see where eliminating specific testimony during the 9/11 Commissions hearing is an agregious affront to our Republic then you don't deserve to live in the free world, wherever the heck that is anymore!

Again, what would be the value would his testimony?

We know that there was the sound of the impact itself, and we know that there were secondary explosions from the jet fuel.

Rodriguez is not credible in his claim that he heard the airplane impact second. What is he basing this on, he was in the basement.



Was the commission supposed to include hearsay testimony?

Howard, what this guy is saying is most definitely not hearsay.

hear·say (hîr'sā') [...]
n.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Source.

This guy was there. He didn't overhear some gossip or something. He was a witness; everything he says is from his own first-hand experience.

So the CIA, who was housed in WTC 7, just lets the Mossad stroll on in and plant charges to which there is still no evidence of. Delusion....

esdad71, we paid 69million to Osama in June 2001, what do you think that was paying for?

Also, we have the technology to read a license plate from outerspace yet we can't find Osama Bin Laden?

Also, WTC7 was never hit by a plane yet it collapsed, why? And only after the guy said to "pull it".

Also we are supposed to believe a plane left a 8x6 hole in the Pentagon, with the only photos/video of the attack on the Pentagon showing no plane. Hmmm, it shows nothing, explosion, explosion, explosion, nothing. Why is the most secure place on Earth using cameras that take pictures every second and not streaming video? And it only had one camera that picked it up? And the date on the camera said 9/12, not 9/11...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Howard, what this guy is saying is most definitely not hearsay.

1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.


This guy was there. He didn't overhear some gossip or something. He was a witness; everything he says is from his own first-hand experience.

Thanks for the definition of hearsay. Let's look at what he has said:

"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor.

www.theconservativevoice.com...

Yep, it's hearsay: Unverified information heard or received from another.

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

www.prisonplanet.com...

That is Speculation.

(notice how his story is subtly changing?)

...William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

inn.globalfreepress.com...

Another version. Probably the closest to the truth.

some weeks before Sep11th, he also claimed, he saw one of the official Sep11th -"hijackers". Today Rodriguez testified for the 9/11 panel

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that part.

inn.globalfreepress.com...






[edit on 10-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

Rogriguez heard the blast come from the basement that burned Felipe David seconds BEFORE he heard the more faint sound of the planes impact 80 floors above.

I heard him give his account in person describing each blast and the order that he heard them.

It is not hearsay.

He is a credible eyewitness that worked in the towers for 20 years and therefore was familiar with the structures arguably better than anyone.

Plus there is no way for a "fire ball" from the fuel to go all the way down to the basement because THE ELEVATORS WERE JOGGED BETWEEN SECTIONS!

Each section had local elevators that ran between "skylobbies".

There was only one "express" elevator that went all the way down.

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Thanks for the definition of hearsay. Let's look at what he has said:

"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor.

www.theconservativevoice.com...

Yep, it's hearsay: Unverified information heard or received from another.

Hardly!

NOBODY knew what it was at the time that it happened!

How could they unless they were "in" on it?

He heard the impact of the plane.........and didn't know what it was until he was told it was a plane.

That is the only way it could have happened and hardly qualifies as being "heresay".

Ooops the morons just lost out .Paid respondents grasp at straws, morons typically don't .

Thank you for that clarification, Jack Tripper. It certainly casts a bright light upon the confusion on this thread. If you are correct then all those who are talking about unburned jet fuel cascading down the elevator shafts to the lobby and basement are just blowing smoke out of their collective (expletive deleted). Do they have an agenda of spreading confusion via disinformation? That isn't ignornace denied, it's ignorance magnified!

Plus howard.....

Your victim witness example that experienced jet fuel in the elevators was between the 78th and 101st floor! So yes that makes sense since it was within the section where the plane impacted.

Originally posted by dubiousone
Do they have an agenda of spreading confusion via disinformation? That isn't ignornace denied, it's ignorance magnified!

Ha.

Thanks dubiousone.

Yes there are MANY folks in this forum that have an agenda of obfuscation.

Particularly Howard.

I have no doubt that he knew this fact about the elevators already.

I found the following with just a cursory search of one end of our tiny office building.
Flammable items from the janitors’ closet:
• Room fresheners or deodorizers (The commercial varieties are particularly explosive).
• Cleaning fluid.

Flammable items from the maintenance storage area:
• Paint thinners (3 types all labeled flammable including a full case of one).
• Spray paint (5 cans all labeled flammable).
• Cleaning fluid (a full case of the same stuff in the janitors’ closet and a couple of loose cans).
• A half empty 5 gallon can of solvent (marked flammable).

Now take all of this and throw it in a fire and let me know if there are any explosions or not (Please DO NOT take me literally and try this)? Imagine the number of items of this type that were in those buildings. Probably enough to blow up a whole other building.
The empty containers that contain fumes are far more dangerous than the full ones also.