It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I guess all the video tape evidence from 9/11 registering multiple explosions before the collapse is hearsay aswell.

You can ask anyone who was there on that day watching and they will all tell you they heard muliple explosions before the buildings were brought down.

There's a reason why 70-80 percent of New Yorkers commonly believe 9/11 was an inside job after all.

Howard what have you to gain by being such a disinformationist and Bush coverup buddy?

Alot of the things you say doesn't make much sense especially with what J Ripper just clarified for us. After all that you still believe that the fuel was able to find it's way to the lobby and blow out the windows when that is an impossibility for it to do that?

You'll probably say the same of me but I don't give much a damn for that because people like you are now the minority. Your old road is rapidly aging bud. It's not a conspiracy of silence anymore. It's mindnumblingly obvious that the Bush Administration and the military industrial complex is more involved in 9/11 then they claim.

Get with the program already. It's unpatriotic to follow everything your government says. A true patriot asks questions.

On top of that what physical evidence has the Bush admin provided that sheds light on all the dissent? Outside of the perfect condition Passports and atm cards...

Nothing! The Bush Administration has it's dick in it's hand when it comes to physical evidence about 9/11. All they have going for them is the television footage that has been severely edited and it's reliance that American's won't question 9/11 after seeing one aircraft on live television.

There is a whole wealth of edit videos. The MSNBC reports that there bombs in the building and multiple explosions.

And as for the second plane, did you see the huge fireball? That was the entire compliment of fuel blowing up outside the building. After that it was only the fires as a result of that fireball bud. Fuel doesn't survive past that. And for the recond the second plane hit should be deemed as a failure because it wasn't straight on like the first one. Hence all the fuel blowing up outside the building. I don't doubt that alot of office material caught fire but not enough to knock the building down.









[edit on 10-5-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]




posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

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".


It is hearsay that the second noise came from the impact.

He doesn't really know that.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
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!


The elevators all used the same shafts.

The shafts were all interconnected.






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



The freight elevator, the one the maintenance personell were supposed to use, right?



[edit on 10-5-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
I guess all the video tape evidence from 9/11 registering multiple explosions before the collapse is hearsay aswell.


What video tapes? The shaking tripod?





You can ask anyone who was there on that day watching and they will all tell you they heard muliple explosions before the buildings were brought down.


No they won't.



There's a reason why 70-80 percent of New Yorkers commonly believe 9/11 was an inside job after all.


An internet survey is proof of nothing.


Alot of the things you say doesn't make much sense especially with what J Ripper just clarified for us. After all that you still believe that the fuel was able to find it's way to the lobby and blow out the windows when that is an impossibility for it to do that?


It was not impossible. The elevator shafts were all interconnected.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   
You guys missed the entire point of this post. Why would the 9/11 comission ignore his full testimony, if they had nothing to hide? It has nothing to do with what the explosion was.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
They ignored alot of testimony. I can't believe that they were able to get away with it.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It was not impossible. The elevator shafts were all interconnected.


No they weren't. Just like most high rise buildings, the elevators only went so many floors. You had to switch elevators to go higher.

The upper shafts only extended, I believe, down to the 78th fl (or there abouts).

Also if the fuel fire had gone down elevator shafts to the lobby, 90+ floors, we would have seen black soot and other signs of a kerosine fire in the lobby. But all we see is damage.

[edit on 10/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
There were over 80 elevator technichians that worked in the WTC buildings on a regular basis.

How come none of them have stepped forward?

In my experence, the shafts within a given bank are open to each other.

There were a few shafts that ran the length of the building.

Since the express and the local elevators both stopped on the sky lobbies, it is likely that the shafts overlapped.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
And as for the second plane, did you see the huge fireball? That was the entire compliment of fuel blowing up outside the building.


I doubt it. The fuel in the left wing went right into the core area.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
So Howward you are again presenting assumptions as fact, you might confuse the fence sitters with that crap...But there aint too many left, how's it feel to be alone?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   

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


No, Howard, it's still not hearsay.

He heard from others that the second explosion was the plane hitting the tower. He still heard/felt two different events. That's not hearsay, and that's the part that matters.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

I doubt it. The fuel in the left wing went right into the core area.


Again, how can you make this claim? How can anybody know if any fuel actually survived the initial impact and fireball?

But it's a moot point anyway, the fuel would not have done what NIST claims.
It did not do what NIST claims. They even admit themselves no steel showed any evidence of getting hotter than 250 degrees. Not hot enough to cause steel columns to fail, let alone leave molten pools of it in the debris for weeks after the collapse.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
You guys missed the entire point of this post. Why would the 9/11 comission ignore his full testimony, if they had nothing to hide?

They didn't have testimony from every one that was at the site. So why should they include his testimony, in particular, to the expense of other testimonies?


There's a reason why 70-80 percent of New Yorkers commonly believe 9/11 was an inside job after all.

THat is a patent absurdity. THe people of new york roundly reject the "Bush Did it" theory. NYers were there. Go around NY telling people that it was bush and one is likely to get stomped, not applauded.


I'll let you look into the security guard coming forward for yourself.

Ah, how interesting. You made a claim, said there was evidence, and don't present it. I have to say I am a little surprised, I mean, sure, why can't there be other people that, minimally, thought that they heard explosions. But, apparently, there aren't. None presented anyway.


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

As opposed to whomever is spoonfeeding you information? Why are your sources a priori better than mine, especially when you can't even recall what those sources are?


it was his old friend Osama Bin Laden who attacked us before the day was over

What? When? I distinctly remember (and of course memorys can be fuzzy) that there wasn't a jump to blame 911 on arabs, I recall thinking that, when OK city got hit, everyone assumed it was arabs, and was shocked to see it was domestics, and that now (around 911), no one wanted to say 'its dem a-rabs' for awhile.


Except for guys like Nygdan and others who seem to be working for Bush

Listen, do you know how difficult it is to be a disinfo agent these days? I mean, you can only trick people for so long that a building can be knocked down by having a jumbo-jet that crashes into it! It ain't easy, and I'd appreciate it if you'd take it easy on the whole blowing my cover thing, I have to support a family of 9 little disinoagents and disinfoagenettes, so do a brother a favour!


then you don't deserve to live in the free world, wherever the heck that is anymore!

Oh GREAT! So now, not only is my cover as a disinfoagent ruined, but now people are starting to find out about Freedomdonia!!??? Yeesh, whats next, everyone wakes up to the Gray Invasion?


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

Where did you get that from?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
THat is a patent absurdity. THe people of new york roundly reject the "Bush Did it" theory. NYers were there. Go around NY telling people that it was bush and one is likely to get stomped, not applauded.


Actually, there's some truth to what he said.


On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.


Source.

So there's one poll, with about half of NYC saying there was a conspiracy. You've probably seen the other polls, with generally higher stats agreeing that there a conspiracy/cover-up/etc.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
You guys missed the entire point of this post. Why would the 9/11 comission ignore his full testimony, if they had nothing to hide? It has nothing to do with what the explosion was.


Thanks for pointing out the obvious, Barcs.

Nygdan, you are REAL slick. You say that most New Yorkers reject the Bush did it idea. Well, guess what...most people who reject the official story do too!
Were we to finger anybody directly, it would be Cheney, and even THEN that's not the only player involved. I gotta give you props on that tactic, though.


I'd point out the other slick thing you did, but frankly, I'm too drunk to remember what it was.


BTW, Howard, you sure are pretty busy on this thread...



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Howard is scrambling because he knows it is literally impossible for the jet fuel to have traveled all the way down to the basement level and blow out all of the windows in the lobby!

Here they are on 9/11....



And here they are broken when a bomb went off in the basement in 1993!



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually, there's some truth to what he said.

I'm sure that there is a poll with those numbers. The pole is what is absurd. The country in general and NY especially isn't very accepting of the 'Bush did it" idea wrt 911. People beleivng that hte Government could've done more to prevent it and having actually done the attacks are two different things also.


Nygdan, you are REAL slick

I'm not trying to be tricky here or something, if I misunderstood the 80% pole then apologies.

[quoter] I'm too drunk to remember what it was.

WoooHoooo! :party:



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   
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?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

It is hearsay that the second noise came from the impact.

He doesn't really know that.



Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

If he "testified" that the second noise "was" the airplane striking the building that would be hearsay if offered for the purpose of proving that the plane hit the building. But since we know that the plane hit the building he is not offering the testimony to prove that fact. Rather, he is offering the testimony in order to distinguish that sound from the explosions in the sub-levels. Thus, it is not hearsay.

In any event, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as where the statement is offered for the impact on the listener. In this case, it is also offered for the impact of the statement (not the sound) on the listener because it clarified for him the source of the noise/vibration coming from above. Considering that his statement would be admissible in a court of law I suggest that it should be considered in this forum as well.

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Roark, is that your dissembling is telling. Divide and conquer, eh? You may consider my statement that your efforts comport nicely with those of your liege lords, the supreme obfuscators, a compliment.

However Ayn Rand would be disappointed.




posted on May, 11 2006 @ 02:19 AM
link   

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?


Ask Mark Loizeaux of controlled demolition who has said;


“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”


They first weakened the base of the core with high powered more traditional explosives which then later fascilitated the collapse with the more discreet themite induced disintegration of the entire core.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join