Dubious Pentagon attack witness Rick Renzi indicted

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Oh yeah, you're quick to judge my friend. You have somehow taken me as a truther, maybe because I didn't like your post that has nothing to do with the Original Post.

Yes, you answered someone's request for the basis of slandering Rodriguez, but you could've just u2u him/her since he was not the topic starter.

No, I am not a 'truther'. Or am I because I want to know the 'truth'?

Yes, I won't read it through because it still doesn't have anything to do with the OP.

Back to the topic please

At least there is a perfectly sensible explanation why he was there to eyewitness. But he sure seems like a man who could take money to change his testimony... And of course some people see things that other people does, even it is not same thing they are seeing.

reply to post by v01i0


Actually, it absolutely has everything to do with the original post. What I asserted was that you made a judgment call about what I had provided without knowing what it is your commenting on in the first place.

You admitted you haven't read it, won’t read it and formed a (incorrect) conclusion.

***self edited for too much snippiness***



[edit on 26-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

You have not answered the charge of slander. You have provided no evidence that Rodriguez is guilty of corruption or has been indicted of any crimes.

Instead you took the opportunity to elaborate at length and off-topic your criticisms of Rodriguez post 9/11 testimony. I'm not going to be drawn into that blatant derailment.

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

It may be in your world. In most people's it is his brave and heroic WTC life saving efforts in 1993 and 2001.

Nor did you answer what logical fallacy you thought chromatico had found in this thread.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by EvilAxis]

Flagged, interesting view angle here, is there a direct link for the released 4 pictures from the hit on 5gon?.

For SlightlyAbovePar: please stop derailing this thread, i cannot really see what Mr. Rodriquez has to do with this thread, only thing i can think off is a derailing since Mr. Rodriquez wasn´t mentioned before you entered this thread, and then suddenly Mr. Rodriquez took over this thread, thats a hijack of thread in my opinion.

For Swampfox46_1999 & chromatico: You really need to be more constructive instead of your attacks which i have witness to many times on this board.

On a last note, if people still believe in the official goverment story about the 5gon, they just need to ask why no more than four pictures from over at least 200 different cameras from and around 5gon area has been released.

If it looks like a duck, swim like a duck and quack like a duck, it is proberly a duck.

Just posting to add an update: Renzi has announced he will not resign or accept a suspension from his seat despite GOP pressure to do so (forget the general pressure, this is the only kind deemed worthy of reporting ). But this is still early in the well-worn Congressional indictment game and they usually don't last long, especially not with 35 counts...

[edit on 26-2-2008 by gottago]

Renzi: I was three-hundred yards away from the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. I saw the destruction and loss of life first hand. I will never forget the acts of terrorism committed on our soil, against our fellow citizens. ... Having worked in the intelligence field, I know first hand that we need to rebuild our intelligence community to guarantee better communication among the agencies. Through my service on the Select Committee on Intelligence, I will work to strengthen our human intelligence capabilities in order stop threats from taking action. I will stand with President Bush and support his efforts to root out those who would conduct evil acts against the United States and make sure we defeat terrorism at every turn.

source

Renzi is a spook.

reply to post by EvilAxis


Welcome back Orion! How many accounts have you registered?

Orion, as you well know it's up to you to prove I made some kind of slanderous claim, not for me to prove I didn't simply because you made the allegation. As before, as the one making the allegation, it is up to you to prove you're correct. It's not up to me to prove you're wrong.

Your basis for a slander allegation? “Rick Renzi, meet William Rodriquez”.

In the interest of educating you, I provided volumes of information, all sourced, for your review. Which, of course, you haven’t. William Rodriquez is a true American hero for his actions that day. I’ve now said that twice, not that you actually read it the first time. He is also someone who will change his story on the fly depending on who he is talking to. That’s a fact. For you to claim I have provided no evidence to support that does nothing more than just highlight to me you haven’t read what I provided (three posts worth of quotes, with sources for goodness sakes!!) and more importantly; you don’t care what the truth is. You believe what you believe and are looking for evidence to support those beliefs, after you formed your conclusions. Thus, anything that doesn’t support your predetermined conclusions is denied and when presented with overwhelming evidence, simply ignored.

My agenda has been, all along, to see if the truth squad would apply the same standards to Mr. Rodriquez as you have to the clown who is the subject of the OP. I wanted to see if you could separate your deep political bias and motivation and be intellectually honest.

You might not like what I have to say, or the manor I which I deliver it but to claim I have provided nothing that answers your charge of slander is just sticking your head in the sand.

As far as the fallacy of logic you have referred two several times, and has been answered several times, is thus:

Rick Renzi being charged with crimes proves……….not a darn thing other than he was charged with crimes. It has no bearing for, or against your conspiracies. Let’s play devil’s advocate and agree that it his recollection of 9-11 should be thrown out. How do you reconcile the hundreds of other eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon?

Based on your logic that it has everything to do with 9-11, would you agree with me that because Rep. Jefferson has been charged with taking bribes and the FBI subsequently found $90,000 in said bribe money in his freezer, that is proof 9-11 was not and inside job?

Something the ‘truth movement’ is going to wrap it’s head around is this: in order to be taken seriously you have to dismiss – publicly and loudly – many of the absurd claims put forth by some in your very own movement. Taking every flight of fancy “proof” and demanding to be taken seriously when discussing holograms, thermite, shaped charges, explosive pods, unloading of passengers, etc, etc, etc is why the truth movement is a laughable subject to most outside of forums like this.

Your refusal to dismiss the truly kooky among you has solidified the “truth movement” as those sad people with bullhorns, numbering in the solid single digits, camped out at ground zero every Saturday.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that claiming three posts worth of supporting evidence is a "derailing attempt" is your best avoidance move yet. It's not derailing, my friend, it's called backing up my claims. My claim: William Rodrequez is an American Hero for his actions that day. He is also prone to making things up and chaging his story.

Again, if your going to dismiss Renzi as being a fibber, then guess what? You need to apply those same standards of credability to WR.


[edit on 27-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Please, refrain from personal attacks. You have no reason to publicly claim EvilAxis to be Orion; even if it's true (I'm not supposing that it is), that is not very nice thing to do.

While I give you credit about your attempt to have discussion, I find your methods unfitting. Perhaps I'll be just using the ignore button

[edit]
C'mon man, it is a conspiracy forum! It's a place where people connect dots perhaps with little basis, but it shouldn't be targetted by such flame and passion as you do!
[/edit]

[edit on 27-2-2008 by v01i0]

SlightlyAbovePar - your efforts to "educate" about Mr Rodriguez were entirely misplaced. I'm well aware of all the criticisms of his testimony cut-and-pasted from Mark Roberts's piece. Once again - it is irrelevant both to this topic and the smear you attempted by comparing him with Renzi.

Eye-witness testimony is notoriously fallible especially when it relates to events distant in time and can be coloured by personal wishes and beliefs formed after the event. We constantly modify memories of what we thought we experienced in light of new information. Sometimes those modifications result in a more accurate understanding of what we saw; sometimes not. I doubt anyone here is unaware of this and it is within that sceptical context that we assess Rodriguez's accounts of 9/11.

Rodriguez believes there were explosives placed in the buildings and appears to be sincere in that belief. Unfortunately we are not privy to the testimony he gave in 2004 to the 9/11 Commission because it was excluded from the report. Whether that was for the same reason the copious testimony suggestive of controlled demolition from the firemen's oral histories was omitted, we can only guess.

If you wish to believe I'm Orion (whoever that may be) - feel free. I'm a relatively new poster here although I've watched for many months and have not registered under any username but EvilAxis. Your willingness to lump all who challenge your opinion into your imaginary homogeneous "truthers" leads your judgement astray again.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying the logical fallacy at the heart of this thread: the bad character of a person has no bearing upon how we judge the reliability of their testimony. I'll bear that in mind next time I do jury service.

reply to post by EvilAxis


Actually, you're 180 degrees wrong. My point is, again, this: if you discredit Renzi then you must apply the same logic to WR. It's really that simple.

IMO, the argument has more "nuance” to it only because it has to. Meaning, you want to discredit Renzi but, do not want to apply the same standards to WR.

Here is the part that might shock you: I think Renzi is discredited, and rightfully so. WR is held up as one of the key witnesses by the “truth movement”. He has changed his opinion many, many times in an effort to keep himself in the center of the spotlight. He has had ample opportunity to make his claims in public forums with links that I have provided that disclose his entire statement and yet he makes no mention of his bomb claims. Not a one.

You mention that his testimony was not incorporated – it was. He was called to testify in front of the NIST in 2004. Again, he makes no mention (none) of any alleged bombs. In fact, when he's not in front of a truther he has claimed, numerous times, he agrees with the NIST findings.

When talking to Alex Jones, or being paid to speak abroad, he makes steadfast assertions that he knows there were bombs in play. As his own boss is on the record, again the link was provided, saying WR was with him during the attack and would have no way of knowing what was going on. Furthur, his own boss disputes most of what WR now claims; specifically the “explosion” a split second before the plane hit. WR was in the B4 basement, which has no windows and WR would have no way of knowing the building was under attack, nor did they feel anything. They heard a rumble but yet, WR is convinced this rumble was before the plane hit. Again, he was in a windowless basement sub-level. How would he know a plane was flying at, or into the building? His won boss, who was physically with him, refutes his bombs claims and states they had no idea what the rumble was – none. Can you follow that?

The fact that Mark Roberts did a lot of the research for what I provided means........nothing unless you don't like what he has to say. I note that truthers positively hate Roberts, but at the same time not even Alex Jones will debate him. Why? Because he runs circles around truthers and their claims.

So, I am glad we agree.

I agree with you that Renzi is a clown and anything he has to say about 9-11 should be looked upon with a jaded eye. His credibility is strained, to say the least. We also agree that WR's credibility is in serious question concerning bombs in the WTC(s) due to his numerous, well documented about faces on this issue, correct?

Or, are you going to further split a small hair and claim because he acted as a hero (no doubt about that) that overrides anything else he's done since then?

I know you see my point. I also know here is virtually no chance you will admit the obvious logic flaw. And that, my friend, was my point all along. The “truth movement” is it's own worst enemy, by and large. Intellectual dishonesty is the mantra the “truth movement” lives by, IMO. The fact that the movement gives absolutely zero ground, no matter how absurd the claim, far-fetched the idea or how twisted the logic – to an observer – indicates just how shoddy the foundation is. They can't give any ground because if you give ground on WR, then you have to question his claims, which brings the whole bomb issue into question, which bring into question.............and so on.

This is just my opinion but based on the reaction(s), I hit pretty close to the bullseye. After all, if I was so completely wrong, and obviously so, you wouldn't feel the need to refute me.

One last thing: you see it as rambling, I see it as trying to take you seriously and give you complete thoughts. I'm not engaging you to waste your time. I write so much because one thing I have learned about the truth argument: if you don't say it, those opposed to you will insinuate you did. So, you have to go to exaggerated lengths to make your point.

Not picking on you, but you did it too. You read a lot into what I was saying, made a charge of slander and demanded an answer. Just ask me for clarification next time.

Further, if you don't agree with me, that's great! I think your opinion is valid and most likely well-thought out. However, to claim there is no evidence that WR is prone to drastic changes in his story, places himself in spots he wasn't and makes factual claims that he can't possibly know about is...........not being open.

You may say all of that - to you - doesn't matter and I think that's okay. You may think that his heroic actions that day outweigh anything he may have slipped up on since. That's totally your prerogative but, to say there is no evidence he has shown a real willingness to whore the spotlight and make increasingly grand claims to keep himself in the spotlight is sticking your head in the sand, IMO.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

excellent sleuthing, once again, craig!

you make me ashamed i can't dedicate most of my time on earth to the pursuit of justice.

thanks for that.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Again you waste hundreds of words arguing with yourself. I defend Rodriguez against scurrilous comparison with a corrupt and indicted politician and you presume to know how I assess his 9/11 testimony.

If he was a notorious conman and thief you could compare him to Renzi - but it would have absolutely no relevance to this thread. He was not a witness at the Pentagon.

reply to post by EvilAxis


One last time: This thread is about credibility and how it affects what you see as someone central to the official account of 9-11 (or a facet of it).

I offered reams on information about the credibility - or lack thereof - of one William Rodriquez; a figure central to many truthers claims of bombs being present in the WTC(s). I also provided this information to see if the truthers who responded would be intellectually honest, or attempt to "have it both ways".

That is, discredit one figure based on allegations alone and support another in the face of massive evidence that the second person's credibility is equally as strained.

And that, my friend, is exactly what you've attempted to do. Correction, have done.

That was my only point and you have demonstrated it beautifully.

You accuse me of being another poster in disguise. I correct you, but without pause to apologise you plough on in the same prejudiced vein labelling everyone intellectually dishonest because they refuse to be baited into an off-topic Rodriguez discussion.

Again you demonstrate a perverse desire not to engage in the subject of this thread.

Topic title: "Dubious Pentagon attack witness Rick Renzi indicted"

SlightlyAbovePar's redefinition of topic: "credibility and how it affects what you see as someone central to the official account of 9-11"

If that was the subject we might more fruitfully discuss the credibility of people far more central to 9/11 than Rodriguez - like President George Bush - how he lied before 9/11, on 9/11 and after 9/11; has proven himself to be an unreliable witness and of general bad character. The credibility of Rumsfeld and the inconsistencies in his testimony might be more pertinent to the thread, because he was at the Pentagon, but unless it added something to challenge or support Renzi's supposed eye-witness account it would be equally spurious.




[edit on 28-2-2008 by EvilAxis]

reply to post by EvilAxis

Yeah, that's what happend


Again, thank you for helping prove my point. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]