9/11 Survivors, and Daniel Sanjata Speak w/ WAC engage JC residents Q&A *Updated*

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Good job sir

I want to attend seminar's of the same type.

It was great that you went, and even better that you recorded it.

Kudo's to you.

Dont let the OS peeps rain on you, If George W came clean and

admitted it, they would still say it was faked.




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 

Thank you Ugie1028, for the presentation. It was great. I wish I could have been there. I am glad that William Rodriguez cleared up something and now you have a tape of him saying it.
I had been in a debate with imapepper about William Rodriguez and according to imapepper he claims that Rodriguez couldn’t be believed in and that he was a lair because, he couldn’t keep his story straight. It did not make sense to me why an honest person would need to lie in the first place and I never have caught him in any lie.

William Rodriguez has made it very clear in this meeting that the Press and News outlets and some News papers have edited out a lot of his statements and even changed some of his statements without his approval. The Press had a field day twisting what he said around, why I am not surprised. Because the corrupt MSM cannot tell the truth about anything these days, why would we expect MSM to tell William Rodriguez story without lying. It’s not Rodriguez who has been lying, it’s the media and they don’t like Rodriguez for telling the truth.

The mainstream media is not your friend they are your enemy and should be treated so. What do you call something that you cannot trust you can call it your enemy.

Because William Rodriguez story does not support the OS it leave two thing here, one the OS is a lie, or two William Rodriguez is a lair.
I have seen enough proof that the OS is a lie in every event that has been told by our government, media, NIST, and the 911 Commission. I have read these lies I have seen these lies, and one has to wonder why anyone would want to defend these lies.

My “opinion” is because, they are paid too, and this makes them criminals by protecting the real criminal who carried out such a treasonous act, (those that are paid) shame on them! These criminals in the past Administration that committed these evil acts with help from a handful of military experts should be hung in public for what they did.


These same evil cowards end up leavening office in such a political disgraces, and while leaving this country on a brink of bankruptcy with their approvals ratings hitting rock bottom.

These traitors were a disgraces to the United States yet, they leave laughing in our faces and having already made their fortunes by their evil deed, and they sit smug, while your tax dollars are being used to protect these criminals for the rest of their lives, while all their records in their administration lay buried forever-hidding under National Security secrets, so no civilian eyes will never see the truth.

SphinxMontreal, thanks for the great video. I watched it with great sadness and with the knowledge, I have learned over the years in my search for the truth of 911. It pains me to watch those events unfold knowing that it all could have been stopped if not for the criminal evil greed of a few men in power.









[edit on 11-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Barry Jennings, has also, he claims, been misquoted with regard to what he said about "stepping over bodies". But by Loose Change. So I suspect they're probably not your friends either.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Barry Jennings, has also, he claims, been misquoted with regard to what he said about "stepping over bodies". But by Loose Change. So I suspect they're probably not your friends either.


Did you even watch the tape where they acknowledged the bodies on fire they did not want to film? Between the Naudet brothers themselves confirming there were bodies and the vast difference in the money made by Cheney V. Rodriguez off of 9/11, this thread is starting to make OSers look a little sad.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Check out the video and listen to what Naudet has to say from about :50 seconds and onward about two people being on fire in the lobby and not wanting to film them. If you are going to be blatantly dishonest, the least you can do is check your facts to make sure you don't have to eat your words afterwards.


To be absolutely accurate Naudet doesn't mention bodies. He says he didn't film two people who were on fire. And the rest of his footage of glass-strewn but remarkaby body-free halls clearly shows the "stepping over bodies" claims to be either an exaggeration for effect on behalf of the original witness or - more likely - a distortion of what he said by Truth Movement types with an agenda.




"A study released by the RAND Corporation shows that victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — both individuals killed or seriously injured and individuals and businesses impacted by the strikes — have received at least $38.1 billion in compensation, with insurance companies and the federal government providing more than 90 percent of the payments


If insurance companies are getting stung are they the only component of big business that is not part of the New World Order? How does that work?

And look - a Bush brother in the mix

HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., a reinsurance corporation on whose board Marvin Bush sat as director until November 2002, similarly benefits from terrorism insurance protections. (Bush's first year on the board at HCC coincided with his last year on the board at Stratesec.) HCC, formerly Houston Casualty Company, carried some of the insurance for the World Trade Center

Except, if Marvin knew the WTC was coming down he'd probably have stopped HCC insuring it. That's what I'd have done anyway. If I were a megalomaniac NWO nutjob intent on enriching myself from 9/11.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Check out the video and listen to what Naudet has to say from about :50 seconds and onward about two people being on fire in the lobby and not wanting to film them. If you are going to be blatantly dishonest, the least you can do is check your facts to make sure you don't have to eat your words afterwards.

No surprise here - the same pack of lies and accusations by the same disreputable OS folks, who obviously have a short memory. But then again, when you lie non-stop 24/7, it is difficult to keep your story straight.


You are deliberately being dishonest here and you know it. Noone is arguing that there weren't people injured in the lobby from the fires coming down the elevator shafts. I know full well people were injured from these fires- that's how the guy William Rodriguez helped out of the building was injured. That isn't what this guy said, however. He said HE WAS STEPPING OVER BODIES, and the only way he could "step over bodies" in this case is if he walked up to those two burned people and pushed them down. At best, he was exaggerating "two burned people" into sounding like there were dead bodies lying all around the lobby, which did NOT happen regardless of how badly you try to manipulate the facts, or, at worst, he's lying through his teeth in order to give these ridiculous conspiracy stories false credibility.

Personally, I think BOTH are true- he's embellishing the burn victims he saw into "stepping over bodies lying all over the lobby", mainly becuase he mentioned it only as an after thought near the end, and these damned fool conspiracy web sites are lying through their teeth by misrepresenting this in order to give these ridiculous conspiracy stories false credibility, mainly becuase the snake oil peddlers behind "Loose Change" are notorious for pulling that very kind of stunt in their flicks. Regardless, the truth still stands- there were NO "bodies in the lobby for him to be stepping over", and if you're trying to argue that there were bodies in the lobby for him to step over, then you are LYING.

I really don't understand why you self declared truthers feel you need to resort to these trickery games, if you truly do feel that the truth is on your side. All you're doing is ruining your OWN credibility, not mine.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave , do you have any proof of no bodies ?

Dave, do you have any proof of fires down elevator shafts?

You pleading us to believe you won't cut it, Your credibility is not the

greatest .

You say the lobby was blown out to Jet Fuel down elevator , windows in

the lobby blown out to Jet Fuel.

Thats a big no.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
William Rodriguez, CNN interview 9/11/01




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.

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. Then I went back in, and when I went back in I saw people -- I heard people that were stuck on an the elevator, on a freight elevator because all of the elevators went down. And water was going in, and they were probably getting drowned. And we get a couple of pipes and opened the elevator and we got the people out.

I went back up and saw one of the officers from the Port Authority Police, I been working there for 20 years so I knew him very well. My routine on the World Trade Center is in charge of the staircase, and since there was no elevator service, I have the master keys for all the staircase doors.



transcripts.cnn.com...

Funny, he mentions hearing a rumble, like furniture moving...not an explosion. And not prior to the impact....

William Rodriguez, CNN, Sept 11, 2002

transcripts.cnn.com...

Can anyone explain why he did not start mentioning explosions for several years after 9/11/01?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Dave , do you have any proof of no bodies ?

Dave, do you have any proof of fires down elevator shafts?

You pleading us to believe you won't cut it, Your credibility is not the

greatest .

You say the lobby was blown out to Jet Fuel down elevator , windows in

the lobby blown out to Jet Fuel.

Thats a big no.


Your own pet witness William Rodriguez talked of a fireball down the elevator shaft but when I pointed this out earlier you just went into denial mode.

Fact is Mr Rodriguez has said more and more about 9/11 the further he has got from it in time. Could it have been something to do with getting on the truther circuit or his failed lawsuit ?:-

en.wikipedia.org...

Anyway, perhaps you could explain to me why the perps thought it necessary to burn people in the lobby when it is obvious the North Tower collapsed from where the plane hit ?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Hmmm. Why is it that the OS is full of contradictions and stories that changed over time but it is still credible? Two sets of standards here?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
William Rodriguez, CNN interview 9/11/01




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,





Funny, he mentions hearing a rumble, like furniture moving...not an explosion. And not prior to the impact....



He was describing what he later realized was explosions,

You , by accident I'm sure
Left out the first part of his quote,

"Not an Impact"

Swampy , you are naughty.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Hmmm. Why is it that the OS is full of contradictions and stories that changed over time but it is still credible? Two sets of standards here?


Lillydale

I am not aware of the "OS" " stories that changed over time ".

Apart from initial confusion it seems to me that the "OS" has been consistent. Perhaps you would let me know what you have in mind.

For example, with regard to the Towers which we have been considering here, the "OS" is that they were both struck by Boeing 767's which had been hi-jacked by muslim extremists. AA 11 hit the North Tower and UA 175 the South. The impact and the resultant fires brought the towers down.

Now, if you want to consider changing stories, have a look at some truther views of what happened to the Towers. It was planes, it was no planes, it was faked video, it was holograms, it was military planes made to look like Boeing 767's, it was missiles, it was planes firing missiles just before impact, it was remote-controlled planes, it was energy beam weapons, it was controlled demolition by regular means which morphed into thermite/thermate/ super whatever (when it was realised that sound was a problem) and now seems to have gone full circle with thermate and conventional explosive being flavour of the month (because it now seems to be appreciated that thermate is an incendiary quite unsuitable for demolishing a skyscaper ).

I am sure I have missed out many a pet theory but you get my drift.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Hmmm. Why is it that the OS is full of contradictions and stories that changed over time but it is still credible? Two sets of standards here?


Lillydale

I am not aware of the "OS" " stories that changed over time ".

Apart from initial confusion it seems to me that the "OS" has been consistent. Perhaps you would let me know what you have in mind.


Off the top of my head? AA77's black boxes found in THREE different places. UA93 was shot down. UA93 was overtaken by passengers. Sorry, just off the top of my head. I will see about getting a list together for you.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


It took him three years to realize that was an explosion he heard? Give me a break. Each time he starts to fade from view, his story changes to bring him back into the limelight.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


It took him three years to realize that was an explosion he heard? Give me a break. Each time he starts to fade from view, his story changes to bring him back into the limelight.


I disagree with you, I think William Rodriguez has kept to his OS from the start and I believe him, because he was there and you were not. Many people who were in the WTC support Rodriguez story. You criticize Rodriguez because you do not want to believe there could have been explosives in the WTC.





[edit on 12-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





I disagree with you, I think William Rodriguez has keep to his OS from the start and I believe him, because he was there and you were not. Many people who were in the WTC support Rodriguez story. You criticize Rodriguez because you do not want to believe there could have been explosives in the WTC.


It is truly amazing that you continue to cling to your ideas, even after someone shows you the facts. Rodriguez changed his story several years after 9/11 (and he continues to make changes to it even today).



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


It is truly amazing that you continue to cling to your ideas, even after someone shows you the facts. Rodriguez changed his story several years after 9/11 (and he continues to make changes to it even today).



I cling to the truth and it really amazes me how you still cling to a proven OS lie as long as you have been on ATS.
William Rodriguez may not tell his story like a “tape recorder” keeping ever word exactly the same.

You were not there, William Rodriguez saw everything, he was in the explosions with others in the basement, and YOU were not. So who is creditable in here, an OS believer who cannot give any “creditable proof” that the OS is true or an eyewitness who was in the WTC when it blew up and is making it very clear that our government is covering up a crime.





[edit on 12-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 





You were not there, William Rodriguez saw everything, he was in the explosions with others in the basement, and YOU were not. So who is creditable in here, an OS believer who cannot give any “creditable proof” that the OS is true or an eyewitness who was in the WTC when it blew up and is making it very clear that our government is covering up a crime.


YOU were not there either. I, on the other hand, know several other people that were there, and they refer to Mr Rodriguez as a money grubbing charlatan. So, go ahead and swallow his kool aid.....he's laughing to himself on the way to the bank.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Just a note to you all.

I would take these witnesses words over any other report that was released. why you ask? because of the commission report infighting and the fact that William Rodriguez's words were manipulated by the media. its in the video in the OP where Mr. Rodriguez states that the media twisted his words, and made him look like a liar.

Poor guy is trying to do the right thing, and you guys try to rip him a new one. you rely on people who weren't even there, instead of listening to witnesses first hand experience. i would take their word over anyone else. PERIOD!

what they say, leads me to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, there is no doubt about it in my mind. these poor people are ignored by the media, and anyone who suggest's that 9/11 was an inside job is immediately labled crazy, or misremembered, and unpatriotic.... Hmmm i wonder who says that...

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!

Looks like they are trying to cover things up. Most people are smarter then that, and know how to read between the lines. Soon as Rodriguez suggested that there were separate explosions from the plane impact, the media led a full all out assault on the poor guy. anyone who sided with him in the media, was fired, or let go.

Hmmm why? why are they censoring him, smearing him?

they are HIDING something!



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Unfortunately for Mr Rodriguez, the unedited video/audio of his interviews on CNN still exists.




Poor guy is trying to do the right thing, and you guys try to rip him a new one. you rely on people who weren't even there, instead of listening to witnesses first hand experience. i would take their word over anyone else. PERIOD!


You obviously did not pay attention. Ive talked to a few people that were there. Their accounts, make it clear that Mr R, is a publicity seeking, money grubbing individual.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by Swampfox46_1999]





top topics
 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join