Dubious Pentagon attack witness Rick Renzi indicted

It appears that someone can not connect the dots. It is called past performance, the account in regards to 9/11 was a fabricated story and that he has been also accused of corruption, lying and other things while being a congressman. The op has simply shown that his, Renzi, current position is no different than that of the 9/11 and subsequent interviews position.

Renzi was portrayed as being a "law student" when he was not. Of course it could have been a media error but being an FBI interview, well that might be stretching it a bit.

Would it require the "whole" gov to be involved, no, just key people in the right places. Should some of the posters here feel this couldn't happen...well your very naive regarding how the gov works. It is not all above board as we all know and it never has been. Does it require a "conspiracy" for this to happen, not at all. Just look at history and you will find that even though a gov was founded upon some form of the people, by the people, for the people and always ends up, of the gov, by the gov, for the gov.

Renzi appears to be a planted witness and for his duty is awarded a seat in congress. Now is it any wonder as to why he might get in trouble with corruption when he told a fabricated story to the whole nation on 9/11?

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by Bspiracy

 

Two main fallacies implicit in your post:

1. You're not really pro-truth if you believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

2. Renzi lying about something that has nothing to do with 9/11 means he lied about what he saw on 9/11.

1: something hit - I want the truth on what and how it hit. This guy's description goes against physical evidence, scientific findings and witness testimony. I am pro-truth. The real truth.

2: it does not "mean" he lied. But given the evidence we have now comparing to what and how he said then, it looks like a lie. So instead of me saying what's happening now justifies how we view his statements THEN is wrong. His involvement back then paints a clearer picture of now.

THAT in turn should make people look at the THEN a bit more.

yup, wth is on 3rd base.

b

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I see the "truth" movement is grasping at more straws. So a "witness" to 9/11 has been indicted. Doesnt mean a blessed thing other than he got stupid.

Do you honestly think that if he was a part of some "cover-up" committed by the US government, that the same government would bring him up on charges?

Well yes actually - absolutely.

Let Sibel Edmonds speak!

Rick Renzi lied about something that had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore he must have lied about what he saw on 9/11.

Rephrase that more sensibly as "Rick Renzi lied about something that had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore he may also have lied about what he saw on 9/11" - and it would be a fair interpretation of this thread's opening thesis, chromatico.

It's a logical argument in isolation but the conclusion is greatly supported by the fact that Renzi's 9/11 testimony fails to accord with the forensics.

Added to this, Renzi's 9/11 TV appearance as crash witness conforms to a suspicious pattern of government/media insiders presented as vox pops.

Indeed it's Renzi's status within the administrative system (former House Intelligence Committee, Republican campaign Co-Chairperson etc.) coupled with the media's use of him to present a key piece of the 9/11 official story that is of greatest significance here.

As evidence that the official account on the Pentagon attack is false it's more or less redundant - because there's so much already.

To name but two more reasons why the official story cannot be allowed to stand and why a full and independent investigation into 9/11 is urgently required we have on-camera uniformed policemen describing a trajectory inconsistent with the light poles being struck and the NTSB's flight data recording a trajectory inconsistent with the light poles or the Pentagon being struck.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Now for those pesky fine officers and immigrant citizens who said the same thing… Oh yeah they was just tricked.

Say the same thing???

Do you have any shame?

Talk about spin.

The citgo witnesses do NOT "say the same thing" as Rick Renzi in the least.

Calm down. I was referring to the 'impact story.' We all know all witnesses in a position to see an impact, including 'yours,' report an impact. That's all I'm sayin'. No, Renzi's dive description is indeed more steep and dramatic. So I'm guessing you feel he didn't see anything of the sort - either wasn't there or was deliberately covering up the flyover. Alright cool. Could be.

They say the same thing as each other which is that the plane was on the north side of the citgo proving a military deception and proving that shady individuals like Rick Renzi, PNAC document signer Gary Bauer, and Jeff Gannon's former boss Bobby Eberle were utilized for a reason.

Don't forget Regnery, and possibly Sucherman, Owens, Walter, Elgas, England, ElHallou, McGraw, Timmerman, Vignola, Riskus, lesse who else has been a problem?

They destroy the official narrative while Rick Renzi in all of his animated/exaggerated glory still supports it.

No. All your witnesses too support the official story. Remember? They Don't KNOW the import of their recall. Renzi doesn't KNOW his dive-bomb report is inconsistent. They all THINK they're describing how the terrorists did it. They all 'saw' the impact and either support or are silent on the US response.

Renzi is just more active in his support for the end-product, more involved in the schmoozing and power trips of the warmmonger elite. It's his job. Brooks is more involved in traffic enforcement than Renzi. Etc...

No doubt Renzi was simply a bit too enthusiastic while being under briefed.

Yes doubt. Perhaps it's just his way. He's dramatic, demagogic, dishonest - a salesman-type. He will freely exagerrate and embellish. His account is worth little. I'm almost surprised he didn't say he saw the terrorists inside flipping off America. Doesn't mean the plane wasn't there and impacted anyway.

Perhaps he really did just make up his story to get some press, or paid someone for their description and silence and then found a camera. These are other options others might want to consider before leaping to conclusions. But hey, whatever.







[edit on 25-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I see the "truth" movement is grasping at more straws. So a "witness" to 9/11 has been indicted. Doesnt mean a blessed thing other than he got stupid.

And yet, when it is the debunker crowd using ad hominum attacks, it's A-OK with you?

It means he is not to be trusted.

Do you honestly think that if he was a part of some "cover-up" committed by the US government, that the same government would bring him up on charges?

Oliver North? Need I say any more?

If one thing needs to happen about the entire 911 experience is that the real truth should make its way out in to the open regarding it. The world has gotten to a point that those who have done these things and have tried to keep it under wraps have lied so much that they can not even keep their tracks covered anymore.

They do not really even try to cover their lies up, rather they flaunt them in our faces and figure that we are either stupid or not paying attention. While just maybe that might be true of some, their are a great deal of others that are watching with great anticipation in regards to the truth coming to full light.

If not, then the consequences of the inaction of us all will just show that we will have to deal with the results.

reply to post by Griff


Please. This thread is getting better and better. Only the missle crowd are the "truthers" and all the other "debunkers", regardless of whether they believe the official story or not, can be lumped in the same category.

Whatever.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


[The fact that corrupt individuals like this with powerful connections in government were paraded as regular "witnesses" to the plane speaks volumes.]

I think you are forgetting someone: Remember the fake reporter with the fake news org called "Talon News" that ended up being a male prostitute that had "sleepovers" at the White House? "Jeff Gannon" ring a bell?

Well, his boss at "Talon News" was one Bob Eberle.

Guess who was also an "Eyewitness" to the Pentagon "plane crash"? Yup, one Bob Eberle.

The center can not hold......

Chromatico - as the only person to mention missiles, you're the one trying to lump people into categories.

Can't you find a more imaginative way to derail the thread?

reply to post by EvilAxis



I love how fallacies in logic, when pointed out, are considered 'derailing' a thread.

Truthers can quibble with the most minute details of a posters illustrative example but the reality that Renzi being charged with a crime(s) has zero to do with 9-11 utterly escapes them.

As far as connecting the dots, there aren’t any to connect. The ‘truth movement’ draws conclusions first, then goes looking for evidence to fit their beliefs. That’s why this post, to truthers, is more ‘evidence’ and to the rest of us, it’s much ado about nothing. It’s also a sad reality check for truthers – this post is considered…………….something. Exactly what, they aren’t sure but by golly, it means……….something!

Rick Renzi, meet William Rodriquez.

Please state exactly which logical fallacy you are referring to.

More about Renzi and his 9/11 testimony

[edit on 26-2-2008 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Don't speak so soon! I'm a "truther" and I was one of the first to sound the alarm about this glaring logical fallacy!

Originally posted by SlightlyBelowPar

Rick Renzi, meet William Rodriquez.

Drawing equivalence between a corrupt, lying Bush/Cheney acolyte indicted on 35 counts and the former WTC janitor whose extraordinary heroism is both humbling and universally acknowledged demonstrates very poor judgement.

Unless you can offer evidence of Rodriquez's bad character I suggest you withdraw that casual slander.

reply to post by EvilAxis


Thank you for proving my two main points in one fell swoop. First, the “truth movement” has nothing to do with truth, 911 or getting to the bottom of anything. It is a far left political movement that uses the horrible events of 9-11 to coalesce otherwise disparate, fringe groups under one banner. Oh, and to make a ton of money. Secondly, truthers are incapable of intellectual honesty. They just can’t do it. You’ll link someone to 9-11 in a way that isn’t true, imply that he is pivotal to the ‘official story’, link his idiotic behavior outside of 9-11 with 9-11 and generally throw him under the bus. However, someone like Mr. Rodriquez, who’s story is at the heart of many truthers theory(s) can mutate his story on the fly and that’s OK by you. It’s total, utter hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

On to your post: slander is only slander, if the allegations aren’t true. Otherwise, it’s history. Mr. Rodriquez has more than a few discrepancies in his ever evolving story. The only place he is taken seriously any more is the Loose Change forum, which you should visit. It’s a hoot.

His claims:

Rodriguez believes he heard an explosion in the basement of the north tower an instant before American Airlines flight 11 slammed into its upper floors. However, since he was in the windowless B1 sublevel at the time, he had no way of knowing when the plane actually hit the building. His supervisor, who was with him in the maintenance office when the building was hit, says, "Being inside, we didn't know that there was anything wrong from the upper levels."

Video

Mr. Rodriquez’s sole claim to fame is the assertion that jet fuel could not have caused the explosions he HEARD in the basement.

His specific claim in August of 2006:

“(911myths.com) says 'A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.' ...Very strange indeed, since there were only one elevator shaft (the 50A car) that went all the way to B6, the operator was inside, Mr. Griffith and he survived with a broken ankles. He should have died burnt since on this theory the ball of fire went down. He is alive and well and I will interview him in the future to clear the disinformation.”

Source:

In December of the same year Rodriquez had this to say:

"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement, since the actual elevator operator of the 50A car is alive and after braking both ankles did not get burned by any of this. He should have been burned alive. He was never called to testify."

Source

Too bad Mr. Rodriquez didn’t bother to research his claims (in the vein of a true ‘truther’). Here is the eyewitness testimony from people actually on the elevators he’s talking about:

Elevator operator Arturo Grffith was in freight car 50A with carpenter Marlene Cruz: "The whole car shook and juddered as he heard an ominous noise from above."

Source:

"'I felt the explosion and the elevator dropped,' Arturo said at St. Vincents Hospital in Manhattan, where he's being treated for a broken leg."

Source

"Arturo Griffith was in a freight elevator when the building was attacked. The elevator dropped to B1 (the basement level), fell below the landing. He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him. 'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.' "

Source:


Of course, they are all “disinfo” agents, right? Must have been paid off by Uncle Sam or….I know…..I know!!!!! The Israeli Secret Police must have been involved!!

But, I am getting off topic, allow me to continue. Some more on the “bombs” Rodriquez now claims were present in the basement:

The descriptions of explosions in the basement levels are entirely consistent with jet fuel traveling down the elevator shafts and entirely inconsistent with the effects of high explosives. On the B-4 level, three stories below Rodriguez, Hursley Lever says, "I heard a bomb." But in his next sentence he makes it clear that he didn't think it was a bomb: "So, I says, 'Probably a transformer again blew up.' So I step back, finish what I had to finish, and I started towards the door again. And there came a big blast with a big ball of fire."

Video

So, in 2004 Rodriquez is called to testify in front of the NIST. He must have some amazing things to say. Certainly mind blowing as he is going to bring down the house of cards the NWO has built! Right?

Wrong.

When presented with an opportunity to make his claims in the bright sunshine, in front of God and anyone who cares………he chooses to say NOTHING about the bombs he now claims were in the basement.

CONTINUED BELOW

[edit on 26-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

[edit on 26-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

When presented with an opportunity to make his claims in the bright sunshine, in front of God and anyone who cares………he chooses to say NOTHING about the bombs he claims were in the basement.

"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."

His entire statement:

This wasn’t the only time he decided not to discuss his “inside knowledge” of bombs in the basement:

From September 11th, 2002, on CNN:

“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.”

.
Source:

Fast forward to October 2004. Rodriquez files a 237 page lawsuit against a slew of people claiming massive fraud, drug running, election fixing and the theory that flight 93 was shot down with a “…high-powered microwave weapon…”.

A list of those accused in the suit:

In October, 2004, William Rodriguez and his attorney Philip Berg filed a lawsuit suit against George Herbert Walker Bush, George Walker Bush, John “Jeb” Bush, Neil Mallon Bush, Marvin Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Dov Zakheim, Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Condoleeza Rice, John Ashcroft, Robert S. Mueller III, David Frasca, George J. Tenet, Porter Goss, Norman Y. Mineta, Larry K. Arnold, Tom Ridge, Mark Racicot, The Republican National Committee, Inc., Alan Greenspan, Thomas A. Kean, Jamie S. Gorelick, Phillip D. Zelikow, John F. Lehman, Fred F. Fielding, Karl Rove, Thomas Delay, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Myers, Ralph E. Eberhart, Kenneth R. Feinberg, Halliburton Company, Kellog Brown & Root Services, The Project For The New American Century, Inc., Election Systems & Software, Diebold Voting Systems, Inc., Walden O’Dell, Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. Chuck Hagel, Saxby Chambliss, New Bridge Strategies, LLC, Joe M. Allbaugh, James A. Baker III, John Sweeney, Matthew Schlapp, Thomas Pyle, Michael Murphy, Garry Malphrus, Charles Royal, Kevin Smith, The United States Of America, The Federal Emergency Management Agency, and “DOE #1 Through DOE #100.”

Enjoy reading all 237 pages!

The suit was dismissed as having no basis what-so-ever in fact.

From then on Rodriquez starts a whirlwind tour of third world countries claiming 9-11 is an inside job. Some of his claims:

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert."

Source:

Really? Could that be true?

"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up."

Source:

And…….

"I know there was a massive explosion in the basement, not related to an airplane."

Source:

And…….

WR: "Definitely. …I think that was explosives that was set up on the basement as an accelerator to actually bring the towers down.”

Audio:

And……….

"I disagree 100% with the government story," said Rodriguez. "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower."

Source:

Oh there is more……….

“As a survivor of the initial bomb of 1993, it was not only osmosis, I believe exactly what happened years before, so that’s why when that explosion happened I put one and one together and say that it’s a bomb. Just to clear something up, I’m really not sure what it was, I am not an expert in explosives but you don’t need a degree on science and technology of fire safety to know what a fire looks like”

A real doozy, this is:

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

Source:

So when did Mr. Rodriquez start to think the “official story” might be wrong?

Alex Jones: "When did you start understanding the official story was a fraud? Day one?"

WR: "Well, I didn’t know day one, I’ll be honest with you. Because, Alex, at the beginning I (inaudible) of the news. Probably days or weeks, because I came out with the story and I testified for the media, for the national media, on that same day of what I experienced. And I started to realize that my story was continuously being edited, that the whole information that I was giving wasn’t coming out correctly."

Source:



[edit on 26-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Opps, he must have forgotten an interview (he’s done so many after all, hard to keep everything straight you know) in 2002 where he said UBL was responsible:
Video:

“Not only was I there, but I’m actually the last survivor from the north tower that was pulled from the rubble.”

Total lie. No truth, what-so-ever.
Source:

If you care, Genelle Guzman-McMillan was the last person pulled from the rubble, more than a day later.
Source:

“Hi, I'm William Rodriguez. I'm not with the FDNY. Actually I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble.”

Sadly, not true. His actions don’t need any exaggerations but that doesn’t stop him from repeating this inaccuracy.
Source:

The last man out of the North Tower who in the North Tower saved hundreds of lives, but the 9/11 Commission and the Major Media hid his revealing testimony from YOU, the American people!

Sadly, not true.
Again, not true:

There are many other easily found quotes where Rodriquez agrees with the NIST report before the becomes the hero of the truth movement. This stuff goes on and on and on and on. Frankly, I have made my point and I have other things to do.

Mr. Rodriquez is a true American hero for his actions on that terrible day; there is no doubt about that. It’s also true Mr. Rodriquez has changed his story numerous times and his credibility is strained, to say the least concerning his claims of “bombs”.

If you’re going to dismiss Mr. Renzi’s account(s) of the attack on the Pentagon, then you must apply the same standard to Mr. Rodriquez.

Anything else?


[edit on 26-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Isn't above something called distraction of a thread?

for the OP. Good find.

reply to post by chromatico


I stand corrected!

reply to post by v01i0


No, it's called answering the charge of slander. I know you don't want to read through all of it, truthers never do, but it's a direct answer to his question.