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.

 

William Rodriguez's testimony

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Here's the testimony of William Rodriguez.The Commission had a closed door session with him then simply left him out of the official report.




PS:if anyone can get the video working I would be grateful.




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I don't know which video you mean exactly, but here's a link to an eye opener, and only 5min50sec:
www.youtube.com...

Here's another w/o Rosie:
www.youtube.com...

I wish his story could be heard by everyone. someday it will.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I have read quite a bit about him and there's no doubt he acted in a heroic fashion on the day which he deserves great respect for. People owe their lives to his actions in the middle of all that chaos.

The problem, for him, is that his account of what happened on 9/11 has tended to 'morph' over time in various ways which tends to damage his credibility in the eyes of many.

His initial account recorded on 9/11 is the most accurate IMHO
Also look into the account of Mike Pecararo



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I have read quite a bit about him and there's no doubt he acted in a heroic fashion on the day which he deserves great respect for. People owe their lives to his actions in the middle of all that chaos.

The problem, for him, is that his account of what happened on 9/11 has tended to 'morph' over time in various ways which tends to damage his credibility in the eyes of many.

His initial account recorded on 9/11 is the most accurate IMHO
Also look into the account of Mike Pecararo


I agree 100%!

A hero.. and a liar!

Here is an interview on 9/12/2001

archives.cnn.com...

You can also read his testimony in the 911 Report (released statements) and also he spoke with NIST.



[edit on 12-12-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I keep hearing how Rodrigues is a liar, but I have no idea what lies he told. Anyone care to fill me in on that? Is he as big a liar as the previous President of the United States was? Or the current one for that matter?

The important part of Rodrigues's story, as it relates to 9/11 conspiracies, is that he heard an explosion in one of the sub levels of the North Tower a moment or so before the plane impacted the upper stories. There are other witnesses and pieces of evidence that either corroburate that story or tend to corroburate it.

What lie did he tell?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
William Rodriguez is one of those "pod people", claiming that the planes that hit the towers had pods beneath their wings which fired missiles at the buildings moments before it crashed. He believes the idea so much he even filed a lawsuit in Penssylvania in 2004, suing Bush under the RICO act. It was more or less laughed out of court.

2004 Rodriguez Complaint

He ALSO testified before Congress how he absolutely definitely saw one of the hijackers in a restricted area within the building, a few months before before the attack. This cannpt be stressed enough- one of the people accused of being part of the hijacking plan, really IS part of the hijacking plan.

The point is, these damned fool conspiracy web sites are unrepentently cherry picking his testimony, leaving out thoroughly dismissed claims of missile pods and inconvenient details like personally witnessing one of the hijackers, and reporting only those parts that conform to what they themseves are putting out I.E. hearing explosions. Why do they feel the need to edit and filter what Rodriguez is saying? Either the guy is a credible witness or he is not. You cannot have it both ways.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
William Rodriguez is one of those "pod people", claiming that the planes that hit the towers had pods beneath their wings which fired missiles at the buildings moments before it crashed. He believes the idea so much he even filed a lawsuit in Penssylvania in 2004, suing Bush under the RICO act. It was more or less laughed out of court.


He's not claiming to have seen the pod. He was in the North Tower at the time, trying to help get people out. Whatever conviction he might have regarding an affixed pod is surely just an opinion. It might be incorrect but it is not a lie.


He ALSO testified before Congress how he absolutely definitely saw one of the hijackers in a restricted area within the building, a few months before before the attack. This cannpt be stressed enough- one of the people accused of being part of the hijacking plan, really IS part of the hijacking plan.


I'm trying to parse this out. You do not believe he was lying about seeing one of the alleged hijackers. So, no lie there.

There is no reason to conclude anything but that Rodrigues claims to have seen one of the alleged hijackers at the WTC. He doesn't claim to have been part of a discussion planning a hijacking or to have overheard anything or seen anything involving the person he identified, with 9/11.

So, to emend your statement, This cannot be stressed enough- one of the people accused of being part of the hijacking plan, really IS thought to have been at the WTC by William Rodrigues, who claims to have seen him.


The point is, these damned fool conspiracy web sites are unrepentently cherry picking his testimony, leaving out thoroughly dismissed claims of missile pods and inconvenient details like personally witnessing one of the hijackers, and reporting only those parts that conform to what they themseves are putting out I.E. hearing explosions. Why do they feel the need to edit and filter what Rodriguez is saying? Either the guy is a credible witness or he is not. You cannot have it both ways.


A credible witness is just that. He might be right or he might be wrong. Ad hominem attacks on witnesses are routinely carried out in court. They sway jurors, but they have no effect on the veracity of testimony.

Rodrigues is right about the explosion in the sub level of the North Tower just before the impact of the plane in the upper stories. There is evidence that lends credence to his story. And it has been out there for a while. The Ginny Carr tape, the testimony of others who were in the sub level of the North Tower at the time of the explosion and the interview CNN did with Jeanne Yurman who heard the explosion and lost TV reception, went to the window and looked up just as the side of the tower exploded out from the aircraft impact.

What you call editing and filtering out is simply being pertinent to any given discussion. Rodrigues's views on the pod allegation are not pertinent to his experience on the sub level of the North Tower on 9/11.

I don't think he has lied.



[edit on 13-12-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

He's not claiming to have seen the pod. He was in the North Tower at the time, trying to help get people out. Whatever conviction he might have regarding an affixed pod is surely just an opinion. It might be incorrect but it is not a lie.


He included it in his RICO lawsuit against Bush so it's clear he subscribes to the idea of pods much more strongly than simply a personal opinion.


Rodrigues is right about the explosion in the sub level of the North Tower just before the impact of the plane in the upper stories. There is evidence that lends credence to his story. And it has been out there for a while. The Ginny Carr tape, the testimony of others who were in the sub level of the North Tower at the time of the explosion and the interview CNN did with Jean Yurman who heard the explosion and lost TV reception, went to the window and looked up just as the side of the tower exploded out from the aircraft impact.


Here's the problem with that statement- there wasn't just one basement. There were SIX basements. Rodriguez was on basement level B2 when he said there was an explosion beneath him. This means the explosions were one either levels B3 (parking garage), B4 (the PATH station), B5 (air conditioning), or B6 (electrical generators). The explosion couldn't have been on B3 or B4 becuase there were people there and there would have been lots more eyewitnesses than just Rodriguez. It couldn't have been on B5 or B6 becuase the air conditioning and the power would have been destroyed and cut off immediately. It's a given there was no secret agent level B7 down in the bed rock, and there's no such thing as a quiet explosion. So where the heck could these explosions have been, exactly?

Then, there's the other problem- if he was down in the basement, there's no Earthly way he could have known the explosion he felt was before the plane impact becuase he would've had to be outside or upstairs where there were windows to see the plane coming. Yeah, he's no doubt learned the exact time of the impact in later investigations, and I'll even grant that he looked at a clock when he felt the explosion, but he's been saying the planes hit after the explosion from day one, even before the 9/11 commission report was released.

More likely, he's assuming the explosion came from somewhere below him, and he's assuming it occurred before the planes actually hit, the same way he has a personal opinion that the planes had missile pods and is assuming the person he saw was one of the hijackers.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

You need to look into this a little more. There were eyewitnesses to destruction on the sub levels before the building came down. There was an area where there was a printing press of some sort that was blown up. I believe it was also reported that there was a statement from FDNY people that they believed that an explosive device may have been detonated on one of the sub levels.

When you put this together with Rodrigues's story, with the Ginny Carr tape and it's two detonations and with the Yurman interview and it's two detonations, there is no doubt of the fact of an explosion on the sub levels somewhere.

Personally, I believe there are two booms on the Naudet video as well, but I believe the sound track has been tampered with to conceal one of them, but that's an opinion.



[edit on 13-12-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Good post mike,
I believe William Rodriguez is telling the truth. There is no reason to believe he is a lair, as some in here want everyone to believe. I can imagine if someone tells his story hundreds of times I am sure they are going to make some mistakes, but it does not mean they are lying.

I believe this is more proof that the 911 commission was doing a cover-up “by not including William Rodriguez testimony”. I just cannot understand why America is not demanding a new investigation into the events of 911. I get the feeling that most Americans do not care anymore.

This is not the America I was born and raised in. Most Americans have submitted to government authority, of do not ask questions, and take our word as “gospel truth”, or you are “unpatriotic” for questioning our OS.

I feel the propaganda News media have done a wonderful job of dumbing down the American people and making a laughing stock of our country while the rest of the world looks on and knows more that the average American when it comes to 911. Most of the people around the world do not support the OS.

I guess they know what their governments are capable of, yet most American cannot fathom the idea that their government would lie to them. I wish I had that cup of fantasy cool aid, because the truth is very painful and I wish I didn’t know what I know now.

What I find funny is that Americans have forgotten that our governments are people too and they do tell lies. There are people on ATS who think our government cannot make mistakes and they do not cover–up their mistakes, these same people seem to hold our government higher than God himself, or whatever God is.

It’s one thing to disagree with William Rodriguez but to make outrageous statements like this is quite disturbing.


William Rodriguez is one of those "pod people", claiming that the planes that hit the towers had pods beneath their wings which fired missiles at the buildings moments before it crashed. He believes the idea so much he even filed a lawsuit in Penssylvania in 2004, suing Bush under the RICO act. It was more or less laughed out of court.


Because of a person beliefs, or opinions does not mean the person is a lair.
Because a person lost his, or her case in court, doesn’t make them a lair.

People who are so quick to judge, by ridiculing an individual because, of one belief may want to look in the mirror.

I am still amazed by the immaturity, ignorance, and the posting manners by OS believers who take such joy in insulting the truth when it is staring them in the face.








[edit on 13-12-2009 by impressme]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Good post mike,
I believe William Rodriguez is telling the truth. There is no reason to believe he is a lair, as some in here want everyone to believe. I can imagine if someone tells his story hundreds of times I am sure they are going to make some mistakes, but it does not mean they are lying.


The problem is; he changed his story. Substantially. Did you read the link I provided above? This is from September 12, 2001:


"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."


archives.cnn.com...




I believe this is more proof that the 911 commission was doing a cover-up “by not including William Rodriguez testimony”. I just cannot understand why America is not demanding a new investigation into the events of 911. I get the feeling that most Americans do not care anymore.


Some Americans have moved on, yes some will forget. this statement above has proven you have not looked into Willy's distortions. The 911 Commission has released the statements from Willy. Have you read them?
Have you read his statement to NIST?




This is not the America I was born and raised in. Most Americans have submitted to government authority, of do not ask questions, and take our word as “gospel truth”, or you are “unpatriotic” for questioning our OS.


You like so many other truthers cry this over and over. The problem? You ignore the answers given to you.


I feel the propaganda News media have done a wonderful job of dumbing down the American people


you should speak for yourself.


and making a laughing stock of our country while the rest of the world looks on and knows more that the average American when it comes to 911. Most of the people around the world do not support the OS.


Do you have any data to support these statements?


I guess they know what their governments are capable of, yet most American cannot fathom the idea that their government would lie to them. I wish I had that cup of fantasy cool aid, because the truth is very painful and I wish I didn’t know what I know now.


Fantasy Cool Aid? My friend, you have been drinking it daily for years!


What I find funny is that Americans have forgotten that our governments are people too and they do tell lies.


Really? What Americans might those be? Please present a list of Americans have come forward to support this statement.


There are people on ATS who think our government cannot make mistakes and they do not cover–up their mistakes, these same people seem to hold our government higher than God himself, or whatever God is.


Do you have these members names? Can you post them here?


It’s one thing to disagree with William Rodriguez but to make outrageous statements like this is quite disturbing.


The man is a hero. Everyone knows it. He unfortunately milked it to the point he made up truther stories to keep his fame going. What should be disturbing to you is the lies that he sells to you and you buy it! (remember the fantasy Cool Aid?


Because of a person beliefs, or opinions does not mean the person is a lair.
Because a person lost his, or her case in court, doesn’t make them a lair.


So impressme, I believe you are a pedophile. I believe you drive a round with an ice cream truck and abduct children. I have no evidence, mind you, but I am taking you to court just the same.

Remember, his case was dismissed. DO you know why?


People who are so quick to judge, by ridiculing an individual because, of one belief may want to look in the mirror.


I'm not quick to judge. I have read many of his statements. I have watched his "shows." He is a con artist. Just like the rest of the scum bags that go on tour spreading their filth and selling their snake oil.


I am still amazed by the immaturity, ignorance, and the posting manners by OS believers who take such joy in insulting the truth when it is staring them in the face.


Care to point out with evidence what W.R. got right regarding 911 being an inside job?

Do you want a lie from him? In 2005, Rodriguez said this:


"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."


So, please point out where, in this released testimony from the 9/11 Commission, did he mention the use of explosives at all:

911myths.com...
and
911myths.com...:NYC_Box10_William_Rodriguez.pdf










[edit on 13-12-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
The problem is; he changed his story. Substantially. Did you read the link I provided above? This is from September 12, 2001:


"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."


archives.cnn.com...


Please clarify what you mean by this. You've quoted this statement twice in the thread. I gather that you're using it as proof of lying by Rodrigues.

You've taken it completely out of context.

Earlier you referred to the article in which it is located as containing, in your word an interview with Rodrigues. There are two disconnected sentences spoken by Rodrigues in the article. It's not an interview. I'm not accusing you of being a liar, even though you have misrepresented your quotation as being part of a linked interview.

The quote from Rodrigues was published on Sept.12, 01. He refers to two events that appear to be distinct. Are you saying that what he heard was actually two cases of people in the building moving furniture?

Make your point clearly and specifically. Skip the innuendo. Tell us exactly what you rmean. How is Rodrigues lying?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Let's look at it as simply as possible.

Here is what Willy stated:


"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."



The following are his statements to the 911 Commission. Please point out where he talks about explosives.

Thank you.

911myths.com...

[edit on 13-12-2009 by ImAPepper]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 

I'll take your word that he doesn't refer to explosives in the quoted material.

If that is the case wouldn't that indicate that what he said about explosives was ignored by the 9/11 commission. He's made the same point about news media interviews, where he says that they are only interested in the part he played in rescuing victims and ignore or delete the things he says about explosions.

Aren't you simply verifying his point, that parts of what he said were ignored by the commision?



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
You need to look into this a little more. There were eyewitnesses to destruction on the sub levels before the building came down.


You're missing the point. The towers had a central shaft in the core where burning fuel from the planes poured down. Burning fuel has more explosive force than gun powder- it has to be, for it to create enough energy to operate an engine that makes it move. Thus, an explosion was felt *everywhere* in the building, not just from above or below.

The other thing is, what type of "destruction on the sub levels" did the witnesses see? If it were actual explosives it would show damage consistant with explosives...like what was seen during the 1993 bombing...but that's NOT what was being reported. Rodriguez himself says he saw people coming out of an elevator who were on fire. This says right there that the damage was from the burning fuel being dumped into the structure, not from any actual explosive device.


There was an area where there was a printing press of some sort that was blown up.


Yeah, but blown up by what? That was down in the lower mechanical rooms, where all the air conditioning pumps, electrical rooms, etc were located, all of which contain machinery that will go BOOM if they catch on fire. We know that flames from the upper stories went down the central core shaft and elevator shaft as Felipe David (the guy William Rodriguez helped save) was burned while standing in front of the freight elevator shaft in (I think) B2.

Here is an interesting report on the layout of the WTC 1 elevators. Notice how they're all grouped together, in the central core-

WTC 1 elevator shaft layout

Thus, from the evidence, it looks like we're BOTH right- it does sound like burning fuel caused flames to travel down the central core and elevator shafts (in the process, setting Filipe David on fire), ignited something in the mechanical room, caused it to explode, and generated a shock wave that Rodriquez felt above. I can therefore with you that there is still more to the story than what NIST or FEMA described...but it still isn't the proof of the conspiracy that you're looking for.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
[edit on 13/12/09 by blupblup]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit


Aren't you simply verifying his point, that parts of what he said were ignored by the commision?



The commission has two forms in the link I provided. The printed documents and the hand written notes by the person conducting the interview.

The notes show nothing about explosions taking down the world trade center. Unless you are saying the person taking the notes stopped writing when explosions were brought up? Since the release of the 9/11 Commission notes, WR has not made this claim, however.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Baloney. I've already had lunch.

I apologize for being flippant, immediately above, but the scenario you describe is not believable. The fuel down the elevator shaft acting with explosive force more than eighty stories below the plane impact is a fantasy.

Firefighters arriving on the scene said that it looked like a bomb had gone off in the lobby of the building, with marble panels off the wall, broken plate glass windows, etc. Rodrigues said that they felt the floor rise when the bomb in the sub level of the building went off. It's far more reasonable to assume that explosion cause the lobby damage than fuel in the elevator shaft more than eighty stories below the impact zone.





[edit on 13-12-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

The commission has two forms in the link I provided. The printed documents and the hand written notes by the person conducting the interview.

The notes show nothing about explosions taking down the world trade center. Unless you are saying the person taking the notes stopped writing when explosions were brought up?


That would be my supposition.


Since the release of the 9/11 Commission notes, WR has not made this claim, however.


I haven't followed every pronouncement Rodrigues has made but my understanding is that he claims that the commission and the mainstream press tuned him out on the subject of explosions in the North Tower.

The commission handled him like a hot potato, hearing his testimony in closed session and undoubtedly choreographed his appearance to exclude testimony about explosions. The commission is well known for not asking the right questions. There are videos of audience members in the open sessions erupting in protest over the "whitewash" going on.

I'm guessing they handled Rodrigues the way they would handle any other "rube" who came along. Let him jaw for a while and then kick him sideways out the door being careful that nothing like explosions ever got into the report or the notes.

Remember the case of the Air Traffic Controllers who got together for a post mortem on what happened on 9/11. Their conversation was taped and then the tape was destroyed a couple of months later by an ATC supervisor. The supervisor was not charged with destroying evidence because it was decided that there was no criminal intent behind what he did.

What a farce America has become under the nazis.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
More 1st responder accounts and eye-witness testimony as it unfolded:

www.youtube.com...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join