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

Brilliant seattlelaw!



It's exactly what I was thinking but there's no way I could have put it so well.

You have voted seattlelaw for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I'm still not sure what a bomb in the basement would achieve? Was it a delibrate clue left so we could all solve the puzzle?

It's been a year or two since I reviewed that but my recollection is that for a proper "footprint" demolition of the towers it was required to "cut" the center support columns which also left the burning slag pools which were molten for weeks after the collapse of the towers.

But, come to think of it, it could also be that there is a mountain forming underneath that spot and lava was simply bubbling up coincidentally at the time the towers collapsed.

Or, or, it could be where Osama and Saddam hid the WMD we couldn't find in Iraq in "Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there" as Rummy said. I mean, who really knows since there was no serious investigation of these things.

Ah yes of course, they took out the core columns and an hour or so later the towers collapsed, how stupid of me

I wonder how people still used elevators and how power was still running through the building with these columns destroyed.. You'd think there would be substantial cracking visible in things like the Naudet video from the suddenly weakened structure, and that it would have sunk, but there arn't... Why's that then?

[edit on 11-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Ah yes of course, they took out the core columns and an hour or so later the towers collapsed, how stupid of me

I wonder how people still used elevators and how power was still running through the building with these columns destroyed.. You'd think there would be substantial cracking visible in things like the Naudet video from the suddenly weakened structure, and that it would have sunk, but there arn't... Why's that then?

[edit on 11-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

And they made you moderator here? What a joke.

As for substantial cracking, liftdoors dissapearing and marble panels coming off the walls should validate for that...

~~

supposing that Mr William Rodriguez' account is credible & true
that sub-basement, intentional demolition, would have helped in the collapse.

now, If it took a massive explosion to facillitate the collapse of the tower that Mr Rodriguez was in...
there had to be a duplicate 'set up' for an explosion in the other tower,
and it too had to be timed to blowup within seconds or mili-seconds of the
plane crash into the other tower. But there was not another William Rodriguez witness or survivor in that other target tower to report any subterranian & massive explosion.

both towers should have pretty much the same sequences of damages.
=from basement/foundation area explosions
=to the apparent explosions blowing out on the floors below the collapsing floors
in another incredible timing episode
=also similar blowouts in towers 1&2 of glass at the lobby & concourse areas

~~~~~~~~~~

Because the account Mr Rodriguez tells, is unique to the tower he was in, and not to both towers...

I suspect that the staff, and the battery of lawyers, deliberated on this type of testimony and decided that the account of Mr Rodriguez would not become a part of the 'official' documents, discovery, testimony et al, of the 9-11 Commission Investigation.

One of the "Gatekeepers" for the 9-11 Commission, was Al Felzenberg, Deputy for Communications, he was part of the cadre of specialists which screened just what information was passed on to the inner circles of the 9-11 Commission Investigators. He & others were evidently following a list of instructions as to what info and in what direction the formal investigation & inquiry was to go.


[edit on 11-5-2006 by St Udio]

Regarding the above questions, surely the siesmic (sp) readings that day showing 2 large scale readings (both greater than 2 on the richter scale) just before the buildings collapsed adds some important information? was this covered in the officail report?

I have seen several reports stating these readings- Are they real?

As for the original question, I truly believe that the government is made up of people who, by and large, are concerned more with taking care of themselves than with taking care of me. Therefore, it may very well be that the government would ignore testimony that it does not find beneficial to itself. Call me a Marxist, but when something like this happens I ask myself, "Who stands to benefit?"

As for the other things touched upon in this thread, have any of you viewed the film Loose Change?

www.loosechange911.com...

I won't say that it contains any hard proof or answers any questions, but I found it to be rather thought provoking.

Hi there all, Im new to writing on this site but I have been following for some time now and find it all very interesting so well done to those that have written some insightful things and a not so well done to those those that just dribble on.

Anyway, Im a Civil (Environmental) Engineering student from an Australian University and I have question my Structural Engineering lectures about there opinion of the twin towers colapsing when no other building had ever before colapsed due to fire.
My lecturer stated that previous to 911 there were known issues with the fire protection around the steel columns used for them. As a consequence when there was a fire in the twotowers the steel bars absorbed this heat and energy and hence collapse.

And just to explain to a few of you out here (sorry if you already know this) but the actual 'melting' of the bars to fail wasnt necassarily because they melted. But they actual didnt melt, but failed. The strength of the steel is represented by the amount of ENERGY in the beam, hence with the load of the building and the fire energy it then failed. Not to mention that the building was design to withstand an accident plane crash (plane .5size and travelling at .5speed as 911), so for it to stand up against the impacts was great. But then fire for fire to force the building to fail, comes of no surprise.

I am not sure if this is what was published anyways, but this seems like the most likely situation.
Of course, that doesnt necassarily mean that it is still not a conspiracy, but I think that we should start to consider that the terrorists were behind it, but the US just 'let is happen', taking away their dirty hands.

Fire in the lobby from the elevators?

In one way, the elevators played a heroic role that morning. They helped thousands evacuate the south tower before the second jet hit. But the elevator shafts also became the circulation system of the disaster, carrying death and destruction throughout the towers.
Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes. The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts.

www.usatoday.com...

Mutuanot was in the lobby of Tower One when she heard the first explosion. Thinking it was a bomb like the terrorist attack in 1993, she turned to run, looking over her shoulder as flames leaped from a freight elevator shaft cooking her back and legs and right cheek.
"It was a fireball with sand and heat, like a hurricane of fire," she said.
The lobby windows shattered as she stumbled out of the building and fell.

www.chron.com...

Originally posted by d3si1r3

My lecturer stated that previous to 911 there were known issues with the fire protection around the steel columns used for them. As a consequence when there was a fire in the twotowers the steel bars absorbed this heat and energy and hence collapse.

And just to explain to a few of you out here (sorry if you already know this) but the actual 'melting' of the bars to fail wasnt necassarily because they melted. But they actual didnt melt, but failed.

Straight from the NIST report, sry but your lecturer is not thinking for himself and and I doubt has done much independent research.
The planes could not ahve knocked off enough fire-proofing to effect the whole building, and how does building 7 fit that theory?

There were melted steel found in the rubble of the building, so that statement is untrue also.

Maybe you should have your lecturer go over the 'other' evidence that NIST conveniently ignored.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Ah yes of course, they took out the core columns and an hour or so later the towers collapsed, how stupid of me

I wonder how people still used elevators and how power was still running through the building with these columns destroyed.. You'd think there would be substantial cracking visible in things like the Naudet video from the suddenly weakened structure, and that it would have sunk, but there arn't... Why's that then?

Of course I can't expect a moderator such as yourself to reply without the ATS preferred method of communication......sarcasm.

The initial bombs were not meant to collapse the structures. It was phase one in the demolition with the collapse initiation to begin later.

The damage from the bombs WAS visible in the lobby.



The basement was far below the structure. There is no reason to assume that the initial detonations would have caused damage visible from outside.

I see the basement levels are one large structure serving both towers:

1) How come when these explosives went off in the basement they only caused a fireball and the glass to be blown out in the tower that was hit? Why was there not a fireball reported in the other tower?

2) Why did these explosives cause fireballs anyway? Sounds like an incendiary device to me which would hardly be effective in causing any significant structural damage without a continued source of heat.

3) Why is it you show plenty of picture of broken glass, but nothing showing significant structural damage to the lower levels of the building? For any explosive to have caused enough damage to actually have any significance you would expect to see signs of cracking and sinking, not just a few broken panes of glass.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

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.

Nice, but how is about this:

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.

About the bomb in the base what purpose it served I also still wonder a little. Pre-weakening of the core structure? maybe..maybe not..it's not satisfying.. but because of the lack of any good explanation for this this is one more good reason to investigate it in my opinion.
The question is does the withness has given an idea of the purpose of such a bomb? If he has no clue what this bomb was good for I give the report much more crediblity than if he prefectly knows what such an operation is good for.

One rather 'stupid' purpose of such a bomb I could think of would be an original intention to bring the building to collaps on impact. And when this failed plan B had to happen.
The collaps on impact thing would implies a certain quantity of 'stupidity' of the people planing such an operation but I wouldn't be surprised if this was really their original plan.

andt honsetly plan B that such a building completly! collaps all of a sudden after burning a little for 1 hour and the other 2 hour with only 15 floors on top..is also not so much a more clever plan.

I still would like to do the analysis of the collaps where I need good video material.
As I stated it looks that the collaps of the two tower were different.
The south tower top disintegrated a whole why down wherase the bottom of the tower was 'bomb' stable. different in the other tower..

www.abovetopsecret.com...




[edit on 11-5-2006 by g210]

I can just imagine how the conversation between William Rodriguez (WR) and the untamed informant (UI) that provided him with this information went

WR: “what happened?”

UI: “A plane hit the building.”

WR: “Madre de dios”

UI: “ uh, er yes. That second noise that you heard in the basement was definitely the plane hitting the building.”


How could he feel the building oscillate down in the basement? From his other accounts the two noises were pretty much right after each other. How does he know that the building wasn’t oscillating from the first noise?

What about his account of seeing one of the hijackers in the building before 9/11?


Oh, and BTW: the jet fuel ignition would have been similar to a fuel air explosive

The blast wave destroys unreinforced buildings and equipment. Unprotected personnel are injured or killed as well. The antipersonnel effect of the blast wave is more severe in foxholes, on personnel with body armor, and in "stiff" enclosed spaces such as caves, buildings, and bunkers.
The overpressure within the detonation can reach 3 MPa (430 lbf/in²) and the temperature can be 2500 to 3000 °C. Outside the cloud the blast wave travels at over 3 km/s. Following the initial blast is a phase in which the pressure drops below atmospheric pressure creating an airflow back to the center of the explosion strong enough to lift and throw a human. It draws in the unexploded burning fuel to create almost complete penetration of all non-airtight objects within the blast radius, which are then incinerated

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by d3si1r3

My lecturer stated that previous to 911 there were known issues with the fire protection around the steel columns used for them. As a consequence when there was a fire in the twotowers the steel bars absorbed this heat and energy and hence collapse.

And just to explain to a few of you out here (sorry if you already know this) but the actual 'melting' of the bars to fail wasnt necassarily because they melted. But they actual didnt melt, but failed.

Straight from the NIST report, sry but your lecturer is not thinking for himself and and I doubt has done much independent research.

And of course, ANOK, you are lecturing and teaching where?

How much research have you done in the field of strucutral engineering?

Originally posted by St Udio
Because the account Mr Rodriguez tells, is unique to the tower he was in, and not to both towers...

Well, let's be hypothetical.

If you needed such an explosion in both towers to collapse them, you could time one of them to go off at the same time the other one actually collapses. So you'd have one timed with the plane impact, and then when that building collapses, the other building has a similar event. Not only would no one be able to tell, but any damage could just be pinned on the tower that just fell.

Creativity is the way to go.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And of course, ANOK, you are lecturing and teaching where?

Be realistic Howard. I doubt many engineers have actually read the entire NIST Report, let alone critically examined the (lack of) evidence it offers.

Professors of all sorts of fields report new studies and etc. to their students all the time without having actually really looked at the research in detail themselves. Really, everyone does this from time to time, some more, some less. It's just taken for granted a lot of the time that institutions like the government need not be questioned.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by bsbray11]

What's that got to do with anything Howward?
Just because someone is a lecturer doesn't mean they automatically will know what's going on. Professors, engineers, whatever are not immune to denial and lack of knowledge due to not knowing the full story.

If in your mind set anything that questions the government is just silly conspiracy theory, then it doesn't matter if you're Einstein, you'll just blindly follow like everyone else and ignore anything that causes you to question.

Then there's the fear factor, instilled in all of us from the first day of school, don't question authority.

You see Howward there's a lot more to it than degrees and so called expertise.

If this lecturer presented a paper outlining his reasons for his belief then I'd pay attention, otherwise it's just empty words with nothing to back them, and his comment came second hand. But as long as it supports your official story it doesn't matter huh?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
WR: “what happened?”
UI: “A plane hit the building.”
WR: “Madre de dios”
UI: “ uh, er yes. That second noise that you heard in the basement was definitely the plane hitting the building.”

lol! You are funny. But thats not what he says in the report but: there was osscilation after the second explosion and this was explained to him later as the plane hit the building.. what would make sense.

How could he feel the building oscillate down in the basement? From his other accounts the two noises were pretty much right after each other. How does he know that the building wasn’t oscillating from the first noise?

What do I know. It's his report and would be subject of an investigation together with the bomb in basement claim.

What about his account of seeing one of the hijackers in the building before 9/11?

What about that? You are distracting. I dont care if he saw santa claus riding a besom 100 feet above the ground before or after the event or when he was just dreaming. But I would like to know if there was a bomb in the basement or not. (Next to a hundred other open questions regarding the 9/11 event. )



[edit on 11-5-2006 by g210]

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but that link on the thread post has some interesting information.

William had worked for the New York Port Authority for about twenty years. He was in charge of the three stairwells - A, B and C. They were narrow and without windows. There were also 150 elevators in the building. He knew the building well. His job included the maintenance of the three narrow stairwells in the class "A" building - WTC1, the north tower. On a typical morning, he would have breakfast then begin at the top of the building and methodically work his way down. Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "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. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion's resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: "I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.

I thought this was interesting for a number of reasons.

First, it emphasizes once again that this man experienced all of the events himself, and therefore it wasn't hearsay like Howard keeps ignorantly asserting. It would be hearsay if he only heard about the other explosions. He experienced them all himself. He only didn't see the plane impact, and had to be informed of it. To call that hearsay is, again, ignorant.

Second, this man was very familiar with the elevators of the building. He worked there on a daily basis, within the core structure, maintaining the stairwells. The elevators were also located in that core structure. If what he experienced had anything to do with a fireball going down the stairwells, or if that theory made any sense at all, I'm sure he would aware of it.

Third, there were others there who experienced, and can and will verify, what Rodriguez is saying. The name of Anthony Saltamachia, the American Maintenance Company supervisor, is mentioned for a reason. He was also there and verifies what Rodriguez is saying.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by bsbray11]