Questions for 9/11 Debunkers Re: Twin Towers' Destruction.

reply to post by Nutter


No, stop wantonly misintrepreting if you please. I said I will not tell you why I do not listen to him because of T&C. And your opinion is wrong as well as your premise but your welcome to continue thinking so as I greatly doubt anything I could say short of completely capitulating and claiming to share your beliefs would change it.
Now, can we please discuss the matter at hand which is not what you believe my short comings to be?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Then there is firetrucks like this that it's fairly obvious from the view of the back part this truck had it's buttom touching the ground.

But they didn't ALL have their bottoms touching the ground, which means you have absolutely no reason to assume Rodriguez was lying about crawling under a firetruck and avoiding debris. Do you have some concrete evidence that he is lying?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Are you aware that you lost this debate, somewhere I think on the last page, when you claimed that William Rodrigues could not have survived by diving under the firetruck, after he helped get many many people out, and by some miracle, survived the ordeal?

And your responses to objections to that, and subsequent posts have shown you to be rude, intollerant, ignoant, as well as self righteous to top it all off, if that weren't enough.

Is that simply a purely subjective interpretation by me alone? I don't see how, since the thead is read, from post to post, and page to page.

But in spite of the fact that you've kind of knocked yourself out back there, we will continue anyway, but before we do, please offer your view regarding what William Rodrigues had to say about what happened to him that terrible day? If I understand correctly, you are saying that he's lying, not only about his experiences within the building, but in terms of when and how he escaped with his life by a hair?

I wish other people would join in this discussion, as this watcher in the shadows is simply no fun to talk to, and has shown himself to be completely unreasonable.

So is there anyone else who would like to chime in on this thread, and the topic under discussion? Thanks! This thread is in need of a much broader contributing voice, so PLEASE, what are your thoughts, about any of this? Much appreciated.

OP

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Now, can we please discuss the matter at hand which is not what you believe my short comings to be?

So, I can't point out what I believe your shortcommings, but you can call Rodrigues a liar? Pot, maybe your black too?

reply to post by bsbray11


Do you have any concrete evidence he is not? I would say a changing story that reads more like the plot to a feel good adventure movie than real life would be pretty darn good for concretely disproving it's self. And like I said it chopped off the back part that shows it. But it is in my media thing on this site. See for yourself.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Nutter


I think he rather thoroughly proves himself to be a liar. You on the other hand base your judgement calls on assumptions of my character because I happen to disagree with you.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Right. Rather like you switched focus and proceeded to ignore the previously agreed upon parameters? Once again, those photos provided did not have certain key bits of information about them as I pointed out and was not answered about. Once again, just because you do not like an answer does not mean it was not offered. And don't you remember that rather friendly reminder from the mods to stop attacking the poster? Not that I think you can.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
You on the other hand base your judgement calls on assumptions of my character because I happen to disagree with you.

And you have done the same by automatically assuming that I have judged you because you "disagree" with me. When have I said anything in disagreement to you? Other than to point out that putting your fingers in your ears and saying "nah, nah, nah" solves nothing?

reply to post by Nutter


You refute your own statement within your own statement. And projecting more than a little. As you are operating on the assumption I am going let's see "Na na na not listening" or whatever other silliness. Kindly, just drop it.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Do you have any concrete evidence he is not?

So your modus operandi is to assume anyone with testimony you don't like is automatically lying, until proven innocent? It's not logical, but I'm used to seeing all sorts of illogical things so I'm not surprised.

I don't have to prove that he's telling the truth, it just goes without saying that you're supposed to when you're giving testimony of an event like that. Unless, of course, you think he is lying, and in that case I would still love to see the proof. So far all I know is you don't trust him, I'm sure because you don't like what he says. I'll be waiting to see how he changed his story or contradicted himself at any point, too.

reply to post by bsbray11


Firstly, think it's possible you can avoid the constant overt attack? I do not do the same to you and I am quickly tiring of the constant judgement calls about me from a stranger.
Now, you are supposed to be honest when giving testimony. But that is a not a magical rule that makes anyone giving testimony be truthful. Also I never said contradiction I said change.

event organized by Alex Jones on June 25, 2006

“As I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 like chitchatting and all of a sudden we hear PAAH very strong BOOM!!! An explosion so hard that it pushed us UPWARDS, UPWARDS!!…The explosion was so hard that all the walls cracked the false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated and when I was going to verbalize it was a generator we hear BOOM! All the way at the top"

on CNN at 1:30 PM, September 11, 2001

“RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.”

• He spoke live on CNN at least twice on 9/11 less than 5 hours after flight 11 crashed into 1 WTC and told a very different version of events.
  
• The complaint for the RICO suit makes no mention of the noises he heard or his testimony before the commission.
  
• He didn’t tell any alternate media and/or CTers about what happened until May 2005.
  
• He claimed to have testified before the commission “behind closed doors” but the makers of a documentary about him claims to contain “archival footage … [of] his appearance in front of the 9/11 Commission” the website for the film apparently made primarily before he “went public” makes no mention of a ‘bomb in the basement’ etc. His testimony was covered by the press and reports his claim to have seen a hijacker casing the towers a few month before the attacks but nothing about a pre-impact explosion .
  

That is just a little of what I found.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
event organized by Alex Jones on June 25, 2006
...
on CNN at 1:30 PM, September 11, 2001

So let me get this straight.

The "change" in his story is from the word "big rumble," to the later "very strong boom"? Really? Are you referring to anything else in there, maybe something else that I've missed?

He spoke live on CNN at least twice on 9/11 less than 5 hours after flight 11 crashed into 1 WTC and told a very different version of events.

I still haven't seen the "very different story."

The complaint for the RICO suit makes no mention of the noises he heard or his testimony before the commission.

So what? Is the RICO suit complaint now the standard authority for what happened, and by omission, what didn't happen? No, it isn't.

He didn’t tell any alternate media and/or CTers about what happened until May 2005.

If I were you, it seems like that would lend him credit rather than take any away. Are you sure you don't mean to be accusing him of trying to make money off of us "truthers"?

He claimed to have testified before the commission “behind closed doors” but the makers of a documentary about him claims to contain “archival footage … [of] his appearance in front of the 9/11 Commission” the website for the film apparently made primarily before he “went public” makes no mention of a ‘bomb in the basement’ etc. His testimony was covered by the press and reports his claim to have seen a hijacker casing the towers a few month before the attacks but nothing about a pre-impact explosion .

I don't see anything being debunked in that paragraph, either. I don't care what the maker of a documentary said. I don't care what he apparently did or did not say in front of the commission, especially when there is no transcript to reference and you're just speculating in the first place.


So, to summarize, like I said earlier, you are just extremely biased. There is no reason to believe the man ever lied, but you assume so anyway despite having no proof. Simply because you don't like what he says. You will no doubt deny all such witnesses in a similar manner, trying to discredit them all personally.

reply to post by bsbray11

So let me get this straight.

The "change" in his story is from the word "big rumble," to the later "very strong boom"? Really? Are you referring to anything else in there, maybe something else that I've missed?
I still haven't seen the "very different story."

The two accounts are completely different except in location. Let's see nothing about being lifted up, nothing about about cracks and the sounds he claims to have heard are completely different.

So what? Is the RICO suit complaint now the standard authority for what happened, and by omission, what didn't happen? No, it isn't.

When did I say that it was? His testimony was different than testimony he later gave.

If I were you, it seems like that would lend him credit rather than take any away. Are you sure you don't mean to be accusing him of trying to make money off of us "truthers"?

Um, no, his story would have been that from the get go. It was not. As for the rest, once again, stop attempting to debate me on things I have not said or you think I am going to say. There is ample reason to believe he lied though you skip around those parts as I point out.. And as for the rest of the drivel. How many times do I have to remind you I could care less of the character asessments you have about a stranger *me*?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
The two accounts are completely different except in location. Let's see nothing about being lifted up, nothing about about cracks and the sounds he claims to have heard are completely different.

I can't even intentionally warp my own head enough to see how you can twist what he's talking about into completely different stories. You are grasping for anything you can, I don't buy it.

His testimony was different than testimony he later gave.

He gave slightly different details. He didn't even contradict anything, he just gave more information here and less information there in the various re-tellings. You are being completely unreasonable in accusing him of changing his story. As long as he experienced 2 separate events in the basement, one from an impact and the other from some separate event, then that is the same damned story my friend. He doesn't even have to put it in those exact words, or even mention there being 2 separate events explicitly, to still accurately describe what he experienced.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


He's talking about the same time. Ok, for starters, you are saying a rumble is like a boom? But it's worth noting that just because you cannot wrap your brain around an idea does not make that idea invalid. And neither am I grasping for anything. I am merely providing the information I have found.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
But it's worth noting that just because you cannot wrap your brain around an idea does not make that idea invalid.

Which is why you should actually consider that Rodriguez is telling the truth, since you don't have any proof that he lied about anything.

At any rate you never showed me why I should doubt his testimony, or any of the other people who testified to hearing various explosions at various times. I have no problem wrapping my head around Rodriguez's exact words and they make total sense to me, as describing the same event. That they somehow don't relate for you is what I find warped, but you can't provide any reason to justify your view so I'm chalking it up to bias, which is an "invalid" reason to discredit anything.

reply to post by bsbray11


Yes I have actually. I could cut and paste but that would start the cycle all over again. I ask again, do you think or as I said then say that a rumble and an boom are exactly alike?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


A "big rumble" versus a "strong boom," especially for someone for whom English is not his first language, yes, I'd say they are remarkably similar phrases in their meaning.

reply to post by bsbray11


That's a rather weak argument considering considering he elaborates both times.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


K, you are perfectly entitled to that opinion. I'm done with this "argument." "Big rumble" and "strong boom" mean the same thing, and saying he changed his story because he used different words is asinine. I've repeated this two or three times now, so I think the point is well enough established that you can continue to repeat yourself as well and no new ground will be covered.