William Rodriguez's testimony

Originally posted by discombobulator
The "experts" on the side of 9/11 Truth have confirmed through scientific analysis that there were no traces of "explosives" in the WTC rubble.

Please link to a source on this. It sounds fascinating.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Then you have ANOTHER problem on your hands. Multiple eyewitnesses on multiple floors, from Rodriguez, David to even the people on the Naudet video, all testify that sheets of flame were coming out of the elevator shafts on the floors between the impact zone and the sub basement areas, which is in fact what burned David badly.

Please link to a source on this.

something in large quantities had to have been burning fiercely throughout the elevator shafts and/or central core.

You ARE onto something here. Something was burning in the central core of the building. That pillar of black smoke that stood briefly after the building collapsed wasn't jet fuel burning. I don't know what it was, but it was undoubtedly connected to the inexplicable collapse of the building's core.

On the subject of the jet fuel. I believe it is possible that fuel came down one or more of the freight elevator shafts to the sub levels. That fuel, what there was of it was likely burning as it came down and likely was consumed before reaching the bottom of the shafts. There is no report of burning fuel coming out of the elevator shafts on the lower levels and creating fuel fires in the basement or any of the lower floors.

Remember the fuel fire that erupted in the air outside the building did not burn all the way to the ground, or even very far below the impact zone. In fact the fires on the impact floors were not serious enough to kill everyone on those floors. Jet fuel acting like a bomb on the lower levels of the building, might make a great movie special effect but is a non starter in the real world, in my opinion.

Well then you have ANOTHER problem. The lobby was at least five floors above where these bombs were supposedly planted. For the lobby to "look like a bomb went off" it necessarily would have meant the bomb would've been so powerful it would also have have killed everyone in between, including Rodriguez.

The firemen were probably speaking figuratively. The lobby was damaged. People who watch the Naudet video can see what it looked like. People on the sub level saw real explosive damage.

The jet fuel could not have done the damage to the lobby, but something did.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by discombobulator
The "experts" on the side of 9/11 Truth have confirmed through scientific analysis that there were no traces of "explosives" in the WTC rubble.

Please link to a source on this. It sounds fascinating.

Talk to Steven Jones.

Unless, of course, he's not an expert?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Do you seriously require clarification on that?

Yeah, I do.

Because now we currently have this...

1.) No one noticed a large crew ripping offices apart to gain access to the exterior and interior columns of the Towers.

2.) No one noticed the same crew placing demolition charges all over the buildings.

3.) No one noticed the literally hundreds of det cords that were running from somewhere outside of the Towers.

4.) No one noticed when the hundreds of det cords were burning their way to their respective charges.


At this point it would be easier to fly a jet into the building.......

People are busy. They don't have time to interrogate every member of the Israeli armed forces who comes into town disguised as a tradesman lugging a spool of computer cable. Have you ever been to Manhattan? Even tourists who are trying to notice everything can't take it all in.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by discombobulator
The "experts" on the side of 9/11 Truth have confirmed through scientific analysis that there were no traces of "explosives" in the WTC rubble.

Please link to a source on this. It sounds fascinating.

Talk to Steven Jones.

Unless, of course, he's not an expert?

Oh ho. Do I detect shillspeak here? Come on "disco" let's have a source.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Oh ho. Do I detect shillspeak here? Come on "disco" let's have a source.

Link

In this paper a group of Truthers claim to have analysed the WTC dust gathered in four locations. A general request was issued by the group for dust samples with the "expectation ... that a careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of the WTC buildings."

The analysis reported the finding of small, 1mm sized red chips which they believe is "unreacted thermitic material", though others have suggested it is simply... paint.

Absent from the report is any finding of the "explosives" that you have suggested were mixed in with this "thermitic material" which may or may not be something other than "thermite".

Edit - fixed link

[edit on 16-12-2009 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Then you have ANOTHER problem on your hands. Multiple eyewitnesses on multiple floors, from Rodriguez, David to even the people on the Naudet video, all testify that sheets of flame were coming out of the elevator shafts on the floors between the impact zone and the sub basement areas, which is in fact what burned David badly.

Please link to a source on this.

I can do better than that. Here are the words of William Rodriguez himself, in his testimony to NIST in 2004. His testimony is on pg 70.

Testimony of William Rodriguez, et. al


"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."

FYI elevator 50 runs directly from the 97th floor to the basement. You can verify this yourself on the elevator chart I posted previously. For the flames to hit the elevator with such force that it broke the cables , to me, it means there was a hell of a lot of power in that fire ball going down the shaft. What does it mean to you?

You ARE onto something here. Something was burning in the central core of the building. That pillar of black smoke that stood briefly after the building collapsed wasn't jet fuel burning. I don't know what it was, but it was undoubtedly connected to the inexplicable collapse of the building's core.

So you concede that fires were in fact burning within the buildings. Thank you, now we're getting somewhere.

On the subject of the jet fuel. I believe it is possible that fuel came down one or more of the freight elevator shafts to the sub levels. That fuel, what there was of it was likely burning as it came down and likely was consumed before reaching the bottom of the shafts. There is no report of burning fuel coming out of the elevator shafts on the lower levels and creating fuel fires in the basement or any of the lower floors.

If the scenario is correct, it wouldn't have caused a fuel fire. If the flames coming down the shafts set off a transformer, fuel tank, or whatever it would have caused an outright explosion. I say IF it's correct becuase I'm not sure I fully subscribe to it myself, since I'm not entirely convinced the damage wasn't from the fireball itself, hitting the bottom of the shaft like a sledgehammer.

Do you have a link that gives more information on that explosion. I'll admit that it does intrigue me.

Remember the fuel fire that erupted in the air outside the building did not burn all the way to the ground, or even very far below the impact zone. In fact the fires on the impact floors were not serious enough to kill everyone on those floors. Jet fuel acting like a bomb on the lower levels of the building, might make a great movie special effect but is a non starter in the real world, in my opinion.

Filipe David (the man Rodriguez saved) was sent to the hospital for severe burns from the burning fuel that you said couldn't make it very far from the impact zone. When the elevator he was on was hit by the fireball, it would have been on or near floor 3. You'll forgive me if I take his word over your opinion.

The firemen were probably speaking figuratively. The lobby was damaged. People who watch the Naudet video can see what it looked like. People on the sub level saw real explosive damage.

People who watch the Naudet video will also know that eyewitnesses in the lobby reported fire coming from the elevator shafts, too. I know becuase I watched it too.

Originally posted by discombobulator
In this paper a group of Truthers claim to have analysed the WTC dust gathered in four locations.

The published paper had a very narrow focus. Here's a quote from the abstract:

www.bentham-open.org...

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper.

A general request was issued by the group for dust samples with the "expectation ... that a careful examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of the WTC buildings."

Do you mind sourcing this quote? You make it seem as if the authors of the paper you link to or Steven Jones or some truther said this. I'm wondering who said it and in what context.

The analysis reported the finding of small, 1mm sized red chips which they believe is "unreacted thermitic material", though others have suggested it is simply... paint.

They tested it against paint, among numerous tests done on it, and found that, unlike paint, it tended to eject fiery particles when it burned.

Absent from the report is any finding of the "explosives" that you have suggested were mixed in with this "thermitic material" which may or may not be something other than "thermite".

Not quite.

The paper was intended to analyse the red and grey chips. If the red and grey chips had been explosives of some known sort, they would have determined that.

Here's what the paper says on the subject of other explosives:

Having observed unignited thermitic material in the WTC residue, we suggest that other energetic materials suitable for cutter charges or explosives should also be looked for in the WTC dust. NIST has admitted that they have not yet looked for such residues [11].

Have you read the paper you linked to? I have. It is very interesting. Of particular interest is page 26, a sort of overview of the status and properties of nanothermitic material as of April, 2000. According to the paper, all of the military services were interested in this material.

Here is the paper's conclusion:

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

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.

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]

After reading this thread I was going to post but Impressme said all I wanted to say so I just quoted his post. I'll say I agree as well!

Well said Impressme

[edit on 17-12-2009 by mikelee]

reply to post by Pilgrum


Ironically, they way that it changed was semantics, which his opponents questioned. When he changed the semantics he was labeled a liar.

I have yet to see anyone debunk his story outside of the semantics changes.

reply to post by jprophet420


What I'd like to know is why aren't these same people who accuse William of being a liar for changing his semantics accusing General Richard Myers the same for changing his complete story?

Holy run-on sentence Batman.

reply to post by jprophet420


There's no doubt that he provided some valuable information which aids in assessing the real amount of damage suffered by the building and not just at the impact zones. His statements at the NIST public meeting Feb 12 2004 are very compelling as evidence of building structural instability:

The stairs were cracking. The sheet rock, when I went up opening the doors, was falling on top of me and on top of the firemen constantly. And
the swaying of the building made it easier for that to come off.
I remember listening to the fluorescent lights, the emergency lights that were in the building, cracking up in line; pop, pop, pop, pop, pop all the way to the bottom because of the swiveling.

What's causing him trouble is not that he's actually lying, more a case of embellishing things beyond what was observable in his basement office at the time of impact.

From his live CNN interview on 9/11:

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement which is a support floor for the maintenance company and we hear like a big rumble, not like an impact, like a rumble, like something, like moving furniture on a, on a massive way and all of a sudden we hear another rumble and a guy comes running, running into our office and all his skin was off his body,all his skin. We, we went crazy, we started screaming, we told him to get out. We took everybody out of the office outside to the loading dock area and then I went back in and when I went back in I saw people, I heard people that were stuck on an elevator, a freight elevator because the elevators went down and water was going in and they were probably getting drowned and we get a couple of pipes and open the elevator and got the people out.

The 'rumbles' have gradually evolved into explosions and he's come to conclusions based on things he couldn't possibly have been aware of from that basement office, like when the plane hit the building and how that related, timewise, to the rumbles he heard and felt.

He's still a hero but perhaps he'd have fared better if he simply stuck with the account he first presented publicly without trying to 'color in' more detail all the time.