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.

 

Rosie O'Donnnell & Willie Rodriquez on 9/11/08

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
People want to discredit what willie said but he made statements and assumptions based on what he was told. Find something he said before someone 'explained' the scenario/events and see if it jives with the eyewitness stories from others, especially first responders and videos taken by first responders.

But what about the media? They said that it was controlled demolition on september 11th 2001. Its ok for them to change their story but not willie?



Compare his story before he became a "truther" JP. His story is consistent with others. I have listed several witnesses that explain a ball of fire. The injuries that have been explained are also consistent of that of a fireballs. The witnesses including Willie in the basement levels reported the smell of jet fuel/kerosene.

As posted several times: Wille AFTER he started spreading the words of the truth movement, claims to have attempted to contact NIST to explain what he witnessed. I ask that you either scroll up or go to his statement to NIST in 2004 here: wtc.nist.gov...

What about the media? Make a list of what they got wrong during the most difficult day in United States history. I don't recall them stating that they were a controlled demolition, but that it reminds them of, or "looks like" a controlled demolition.




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
What is the difference between the media qualifying with "looks like" and Willie saying "I believe?" Either they are both lying, or stating their own personal subjective view.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


There is nothing wrong with someone stating what they "believe." Heck we all do it. Willie takes it a step further by stating things as facts, and in some instances, lies. For instance:

Rodriguez:

"Because that came out in the investigation that, probably that, this explosion was to weaken the base of the foundation of the building, to be synchronized with the hit on the top, so it would fall automatically."


video.google.com... @11:50

What investigation is he talking about?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


Fair enough. That would seem to be an outright lie. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

I can see why you dont want to touch the issue, but its hardly OT. You can't try to discredit what someone is saying if you arent looking at all the facts. Facts don't become irrelevant when someone didnt witness them.



So, then you can give Willie's quote about the molten metal he saw? Of course not, because he never made that statement.

But it's worse than that for you.

You want to take his statement of "explosions" and use it as evidence of bombs, etc in the basement. And by using troofer logic, say that these "bombs" explain the molten metal.....

But of course, the use of bombs or cutter charges don't leave these mythical "rivers of molten steel". So whether or not there were bombs would be totally irrelevant to the whole molten metal issue.

Which now takes us back to on topic discussion : what has Willie claimed..... Well, that depends what day it is. He's changed his story as often as a stripper changes her g-string....



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join