William Rodriguez is a Fraud

reply to post by Yankee451


Well if you want to discuss this like an adult, you an start with the points I made in my opening post which also explains why I did not read all it.

If you give me a Dr. Suess book and tell me it is a real life, true story. I will read it, but if I can show you it is fiction after reading the first few pages, you can not expect me to read the rest of it and treat it as non fiction.

You can whine and cry about respect all you want, but I did not disrespect you. I openly admitted and did not read the entire thing and I go on to explain why that is. So, would you care to address it or do you want to throw around more insults and cry about respect some more?

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Well if you want to discuss this like an adult, you an start with the points I made in my opening post which also explains why I did not read all it.

If you give me a Dr. Suess book and tell me it is a real life, true story. I will read it, but if I can show you it is fiction after reading the first few pages, you can not expect me to read the rest of it and treat it as non fiction.

You can whine and cry about respect all you want, but I did not disrespect you. I openly admitted and did not read the entire thing and I go on to explain why that is. So, would you care to address it or do you want to throw around more insults and cry about respect some more?

I'm happy to oblige you and I will ignore your adult comparison to children's fiction and the "whine and cry" reference. Good to chat with you Wendall, thanks for taking the time to address me with civility and to not discard my efforts sight unseen.

Please allow me a moment to read your observations and compile a reply. I have a busy day today and it may take me some time, so please bear with me.

Yankee451

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper

 

People saw CGI cartoon planes on video. Anyone who claims they saw a plane in person is lying. Like you did about your sister.

Fine, you can go on believing whatever you want. Just don't be suprised when you hear a lot of laughter. Please believe that there was no one in lower Manhattan, mid morning on week day in September in the vicinity of the World Trade Center. Because that's is exactly what you are proposing.

reply to post by hooper

Fine, you can go on believing whatever you want.

"Believing" is something people do when they don't have facts to back them up. I go where the evidence leads me, whereas religious zealots and "truth movements" rely on faith and Orwellian Group-think.

Just don't be suprised when you hear a lot of laughter.

Yes; nervous laughter from the willfully ignorant.

Please believe that there was no one in lower Manhattan, mid morning on week day in September in the vicinity of the World Trade Center.

Your words, not mine. I have seen no evidence to support that statement, but again, you don't need evidence.

Because that's is exactly what you are proposing.

Your powers of deduction give me chills...no wait, that's just my skin crawling. I never proposed such a thing.

reply to post by Yankee451

"Believing" is something people do when they don't have facts to back them up. I go where the evidence leads me, whereas religious zealots and "truth movements" rely on faith and Orwellian Group-think.

Well then why are you so alone? Is everyone else too stupid to see the "evidence" that you see? Do you know what they call it when you start seeing things that no one else sees?

Yes; nervous laughter from the willfully ignorant.

You may be right. I think the laughter may have an anxious element to it, particularly when you start talking about "no planes". In fact it may be very nervous.

Your words, not mine. I have seen no evidence to support that statement, but again, you don't need evidence.

Try reading your own manifestos. That's exactly what is required.

Your powers of deduction give me chills...no wait, that's just my skin crawling. I never proposed such a thing.

Yes you did. In fact, that is core of your proposition. That no one saw the planes.

I picture you in the basement of Langley. Desk strewn with full ashtrays and empty Dr. Pepper cans and spent candy wrappers...taking your breaks holding up a picture of Janet Napolitano with one hand.

Its funny, I picture you in your basement too. Actually my cubicle is on the third floor, Department of Counterintelligence Threat Analysis.

reply to post by MrWendal


Before I can begin to respond, have you ever read about Operation Brownstone and Code Angel?

My take is this:

911 was not simply some terrorist attack, it was a huge coverup of institutional corruption within Big Media, Big Government, the Military Industrial Complex and Big Finance. It was an insurance fraud operation in addition to a bank heist and competition-elimination scam. Demolishing the asbestos-bombs known as the WTC was only part of the plan, and using the whole, scripted event as a pretext for global war was just the cherry on the cake.

The operation likely involved Pentagon Brass, USAF, the US Navy, NORAD, the Securities and Exchange Comission, the OEM, FEMA, NYC Mayor's office, FDNY and NYPD brass, the Federal Government, the Federal Reserve, select players in Big Finance, and the Office of Naval Intelligence, just to name a few.

So, tell me...what's your stance on 911? Are you a true believer in the government meme, or are you a truther who believes in planes; or somewhere in between?

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Wow I can't believe you had the balls to say that. I don't think any victim of 9/11 has to prove jack to you. Nor do they need to rip open okld wounds to satiate your childness

reply to post by VonDoomen


Oh, I don't know. Someone has some 'splainin' to do:

WASHINGTON — A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers to why nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased Americans.

Source

If I had a loved one who had died in the attacks, I'd want to make sure no stone was left unturned to find the perpetrators. And either way, I'd certainly not want my death in the family to be used as a lame pretext to justify aggressive wars against brown people.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Before I can begin to respond, have you ever read about Operation Brownstone and Code Angel?

My take is this:

911 was not simply some terrorist attack, it was a huge coverup of institutional corruption within Big Media, Big Government, the Military Industrial Complex and Big Finance. It was an insurance fraud operation in addition to a bank heist and competition-elimination scam. Demolishing the asbestos-bombs known as the WTC was only part of the plan, and using the whole, scripted event as a pretext for global war was just the cherry on the cake.

The operation likely involved Pentagon Brass, USAF, the US Navy, NORAD, the Securities and Exchange Comission, the OEM, FEMA, NYC Mayor's office, FDNY and NYPD brass, the Federal Government, the Federal Reserve, select players in Big Finance, and the Office of Naval Intelligence, just to name a few.

So, tell me...what's your stance on 911? Are you a true believer in the government meme, or are you a truther who believes in planes; or somewhere in between?

I believe that there needs to be a real independent investigation done. I believe enough questions exist that have not been answered and needs to be. I do not subscribe to any theory at all because none of it can be proven without a complete investigation. Do I believe what the Government has told me? Absolutely not. Do I know what happened on 9/11? Absolutely not. I have suspicions, I have ideas, I may even have my own theory. However, it means nothing if you can not prove it. So what purpose does it serve me to argue about something I can not prove?

It is my opinion that the real problem with the "Truth movement" is that people have married themselves to all types of theories, and that is a mistake. The reality is, people just need to ask questions not provide the answers. The answers can come from an Independent investigation.

You may want to look back a bit further, cause you have not addressed a single question I have asked that was in regard to your op. My post directly addressed the information that was in the OP. My post directly addressed the following.

1. How it is that you cleaned the stairwells of t least 1, maybe (2) 100 story buildings each day, yet when these building fell, there was 16 miles of missing staircases. Where did those 16 miles of staircases go Willie?

2. Where are the 16 miles of staircase that you cleaned on a daily basis Willy? They are totally and completely absent from the debris pile. "Where did those 16 miles of missing staircases go to Willy? And why aren't those 16 miles of missing staircases at the world trade center part of your international crusade?

3. How is it that performed at bare minimum 97 minutes of miracles in only 17 minutes? From 8:46 a, till 9:03 am, the world wants an answer Willie Rodriguez, Mr. Last man out of the world trade center with nice white teeth not stained from tetracycline.

4. Whats your relationship again to James Randi, MASS Illusions and magic?

5. Where is a single piece of footage of any of your alleged claims on 9/11? To being pulled from under the fire truck, to everything else? There isn't a single credible reason you can give why there is no footage of you being pulled from the fire truck. News wires and reporters at that time would have descended the scene like seagulls in a McDonalds parking lot.

reply to post by MrWendal


Thanks.

As I said, before I can respond I wanted to know your position. I have not yet read your full post, but I will do so and reply when I have enough uninterrupted time at my disposal.

reply to post by Yankee451


I agree some people have some explaining to do, however, we ALL saw the people trapped in the towers waving from the windowsm and jumping to their deaths. People died that day. And I seriously hope no one in here is attempting to dispute the fact. Now, whatever some corrupt government officials did with their names after the fact is not the fault of the victims or families. Also, did they positively ID every body? To my knowledge, no they didn't. Which can raise tricky legal issues. How are people to know if someone faked their own death by having their family claim they died in the towers and are actually still around or some other crazy story along along those lines. I hate bringing up the possibility, but there is a chance some people could have attempted fraud. I don't know a lot about the government process concerning social security, and I don't know what they would do in a case like this. I'm just trying to throw out some possibilities that technically aren't impossible.

reply to post by MrWendal

First of all, Willy's story is verified by other people. Namely firefighters and people he helped get out of the building.

Actually, this is where Willy's story begins to disintegrate. Picture the scene...you're an employee of a company in the WTC. There have been explosions and the place starts to fill with smoke; and you're too paralyzed with fear to save yourself, but Willy somehow finds you an leads you to safety. Speaking for me, I'd not wait to GTF out.

And with regards to the firemen, Willy's got the only key, and only he can lead the firefighters up the stairs. These sissy firefighters aren't used to stair climbing like Willy is. I know fire fighters, and climbing stairs in full gear is part of their regular duties, but on 911, they're all a bunch of scared pussies who rely on Willy to lead them around and unlock doors for them, presumably because it's faster than busting them down. So everyone is bunched around this janitor at each door, waiting to get in, with stragglers gasping for breath behind them.

On floor 34 I believe, Willy got spooked by sounds of heavy equipment moving on that floor and decided to not open the door for the firefighters, and he and the firefighters simply left whoever was on that floor to die. Yeah, this sounds about as believable as the firefighters relying on Willy to sprint ahead and open doors for them. In reality, if Willy had refused to open the door, the firefighters would have broken it down.

There is no complete list of names of the people he saved, and he claims to have been alone when he was saving most of the folks, so its his word as well as the dubious word of the few people who have gone public, against common sense.

Some of these other people have not made a dime off telling their stories, so what would they have to gain by helping Willy keep a lie going?

Hoax maintenance. With a story as wild and unbelievable as Willy's, they'd need backup. With the vast resources of the intelligence communities, for all we know the folks who have spoken up are Willy's supervisors and handlers.

Starting with the staircase.... how is it even remotely possible that he would know? Did Willy bring the towers down? Does he know what caused it to collapse? Does he know why the staircase was not found in the rubble?

I believe the claim is that much of the staircase wasn't built to begin with, and that Willy's story is necessary as a backstop to the original hoax which was that the towers were bustling "cities within the city". Evidence shows to the contrary, that they were gigantic real estate duds which couldn't be leased,and were huge liabilities for the Port Authority.

Onto question 3...Why are his teeth not stained? Really?? I have seen a lot of footage and people covered in dust as they walked away from the WTC complex that day.... do ANY of them have stained teeth? Or is it that their teeth are white especially when the rest of them are covered in dust?

See, now here is where you would have benefited from reading the full post. The OP was involved in a very human pissing match between he and Willy and he was responding to a crack about his yellow teeth. He was not referring to dust covered victims.

Question 4. So now this is a magic trick? Let me guess, no planes, no victims, and even the buildings did not exist? It was ALL one big magic trick and Willy forgot how to bring the buildings back? Sorry but this is just what I call nit picking. How does knowing a magician help Willy at all even if he is lying? Answer: It doesn't.

Had you read even some of my replies on this very thread you would not need to ask.

Willy has a history as a magician's assistant, AKA: CON MAN.

Question 5 is just stupid. Maybe there is no footage of him being pulled out from under the firetruck because all the reporters turned and ran the hell away from the buildings and the parked firetrucks when the buildings fell. Was Willy supposed to stay under that firetruck until the media came back just to be sure there was a picture or two?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, doncha think, especially when the claim is coming from a man with a history as a CON MAN. I wouldn't expect Willy to wait to be saved any more than I'd expect any single person still in the building with two working legs to wait to be rescued by Willy. How about seeing stupid where stupid is, namely, written all over Willy's story?

reply to post by VonDoomen

I agree some people have some explaining to do, however, we ALL saw the people trapped in the towers waving from the windowsm and jumping to their deaths.

We all saw video which has been proven repeatedly to have been tampered with.

People died that day.

Not according to the Social Security death tracking system.

And I seriously hope no one in here is attempting to dispute the fact.

Why; do you have a stake in the story? Are you vested in war bonds or something?

Now, whatever some corrupt government officials did with their names after the fact is not the fault of the victims or families.

Excuse me? Who ever said anything was the fault of victims or families?

Also, did they positively ID every body? To my knowledge, no they didn't.

So where did they come up with the number of dead?

How are people to know if someone faked their own death by having their family claim they died in the towers and are actually still around or some other crazy story along along those lines. I hate bringing up the possibility, but there is a chance some people could have attempted fraud. I don't know a lot about the government process concerning social security, and I don't know what they would do in a case like this. I'm just trying to throw out some possibilities that technically aren't impossible.

Excellent observation. And what if a bunch of corrupt NYPD and FDNY brass wanted to "die" and have their families collect a couple million in payoff money from the Victim's Compensation Fund as payoff for their roles in the scam? How many of those made men and wise guys would suddenly have a conscience and speak out about the fraud?

reply to post by hooper



I said:

"Believing" is something people do when they don't have facts to back them up. I go where the evidence leads me, whereas religious zealots and "truth movements" rely on faith and Orwellian Group-think.

and you said:

Well then why are you so alone? Is everyone else too stupid to see the "evidence" that you see?

You do know what "Orwellian Group-think" is, right?

I certainly don't think everyone is too stupid; too complacent perhaps. I can tell you that most of the response to lines of inquiry like those I post are full of derision and ridicule, why would anyone want to subject themselves to reading information that could get them labeled "crazy". Its far easier to flip on the TV and let HBO wash over you like a salve.

I don't blame folks for avoiding the uncomfortable stuff, and I understand how labeling a theory "crazy" can make one feel better about being complacent.

You may be right. I think the laughter may have an anxious element to it, particularly when you start talking about "no planes". In fact it may be very nervous.

touche...funny.

Try reading your own manifestos. That's exactly what is required.

Manifestos? Do tell, got an example? You seem to be trying to build a straw man argument here, so let me nip this in the bud now. I have never claimed Manhattan was empty, only that with a lock on media, any witnesses claiming seeing other than a jet would easily be silenced. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Yes you did. In fact, that is core of your proposition. That no one saw the planes.

Yeah, and by that you think I meant no one was there? See, you can tell a spook by his refusal to even consider there might not have been planes...lol...honestly. You seriously can't imagine the media lied to you, so your only alternative is to imagine Manhattan was devoid of people?

Its funny, I picture you in your basement too. Actually my cubicle is on the third floor, Department of Counterintelligence Threat Analysis.

Is it part of the standard operating procedure to protect the "planes" hoax at all cost, even if it requires fabricating a sister who "witnessed" one? Or do you have some other reason for your dogged refusal to consider any alternative explanation, no matter how much evidence supports it?

reply to post by MrWendal

You are wrong and even making this assumption really shows your lack of critical thinking skills.

Please use your superior critical thinking to tell me exactly where I'm wrong. I linked above to a fairly detailed analysis of the damage to the North Tower, can you show me in your own words how the damage is consistent with a jet crash?

Too many people saw the planes.

How many? How many said they saw something else? How many saw nothing? Can you rely on any of these figures? If so, why?

People who were not close to each others locations, people who did not know each other, people who have nothing to gain by lying, yet you want us to believe that they all conspired with one another to get their story straight?

Who? Names please. Most of the people who saw planes were media employees, yes the same media who have been owned by intelligence services since the fifties.

Your assumption is even more ridiculous than your half baked TV fakery theory.

"Ridiculous" and "Half Baked". No comments on the evidence that leads to that conclusion, only a blanket statement of derision. Check. Critical thinking? Not so much.

Yankee with all due respect.. YOU are the type of person in the truth movement that I simply can not stand.

I can feel your respect, thanks.

Tell me all about the people you CAN stand and why. Really, I'm just dying to know.

YOU are the type of person in the truth movement who help to make a case for why all truth seekers are nut cases.

There's that respect again. You are the type of person who doesn't know the truth movement was started by the perpetrators as a means to direct public opinion. It's called controlled opposition, and you're either one of them or a sucker. I haven't been around you enough yet to decide, but the air is getting heavy, if you know what I mean.

I have said this a million times, and apparently I am going to say it again. The goal of the 9/11 truth movement was always to push for an independent, complete investigation.

Really. A million times? Well, I was an early joiner to the Scholars for 911 Truth and I have never heard of you or your belief that you can speak for the "Truth Movement". Anyone who doesn't know the "Truth Movement" was all part of the plan isn't much of a "Truther", but I'll cut you some slack and allow you to explain why you appear to not know that.

There are more than enough questions that can be asked in order to make a case for why such an investigation is needed that there is no need to continue to come up with theory after theory after theory. If you have a theory, then there is really no need for an investigation now is there?

Okay, so which investigation should we pursue? Anything involving a plane, right? And who selects the "independent" investigators?

Lets imagine this is NAZI Germany and you're stomping around demanding an investigation...who would you turn to to lead an independent investigation?

Am I thinking to critically for you?

reply to post by Yankee451

You do know what "Orwellian Group-think" is, right?

Yeah, its a phrase taken from a work of FICTION. 1984 was not a documentary, it was a work of fiction, make-believe.

I certainly don't think everyone is too stupid; too complacent perhaps.

Either way, it comes out the same - everyone is wrong and you are right. That's a tough one. Face it, you have no exclusive access to any information. You are working from the same observations, yet coming to a conclusion that is absolutely unique.

I can tell you that most of the response to lines of inquiry like those I post are full of derision and ridicule, why would anyone want to subject themselves to reading information that could get them labeled "crazy". Its far easier to flip on the TV and let HBO wash over you like a salve.

You keep throwing around words like "information". Its not the "information" portion that gets the crazy label, its the conclusions you draw from that information. Those conclusions are a product of your imagination.

I don't blame folks for avoiding the uncomfortable stuff, and I understand how labeling a theory "crazy" can make one feel better about being complacent.

Or....they are labeling it "crazy" because it is - crazy. People will do that as well you know. When one person tells you that you're conclusions are crazy - well that's just one opinion - but by your own admission you are hearing that from just about everyone - does that not give you pause?

Manifestos? Do tell, got an example?

Just look at your own posts and links.

You seem to be trying to build a straw man argument here, so let me nip this in the bud now. I have never claimed Manhattan was empty, only that with a lock on media, any witnesses claiming seeing other than a jet would easily be silenced. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Ok, thats not too crazy - the "media" has the ability to silence every person in lower Manhattan. That's the other side of the same coin.

Yeah, and by that you think I meant no one was there? See, you can tell a spook by his refusal to even consider there might not have been planes...lol...honestly.

By spook you mean human being, right? So every one that refuses to get sucked into your fantasy is a government agent? Hmmmm.

You seriously can't imagine the media lied to you, so your only alternative is to imagine Manhattan was devoid of people?

Uh, yeah. The idea that there's some underground bunker filled with nefarious evildoers telling the "media" what to show and what not to show in the paper, magazines, TV, radio and on the internet is not rational.

Is it part of the standard operating procedure to protect the "planes" hoax at all cost, even if it requires fabricating a sister who "witnessed" one?

No, its SOP to promote the truth. One of the reasons is because of what my sister witnessed.

Or do you have some other reason for your dogged refusal to consider any alternative explanation, no matter how much evidence supports it?

Considered and dismissed. Can't you accept that everyone that exposes themselves to your missile, media, and CGI fanatasies has the same reaction? They can't all be "in on it", Langely ain't that big.

reply to post by hooper

"Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Meanings

The adjective Orwellian refers to these behaviours of Mr. Farr and The Party, especially when the Party is the State:

Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.

State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.

Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.

The adoration of state leaders and their Party.

The encouragement of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are "doublespeak", and "newspeak"

The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.

A (generally) dystopian future.

The use of euphemism to describe an agency, program or other concept, especially when the name denotes the opposite of what is actually occurring. E.g. a department that wages war is called the "Ministry of Peace" or "Ministry of Defence"

Source

Either way, it comes out the same - everyone is wrong and you are right. That's a tough one. Face it, you have no exclusive access to any information. You are working from the same observations, yet coming to a conclusion that is absolutely unique.

I offer information and discussion and you offer derision, won't even read the material and then proclaim "everyone is wrong and you are right". Sigh. Project much?

May I give you my impression of you? I think you know I'm right and you're doing anything you can to dissuade any curious reader from reading my material. If you were seriously interested in discussion, you'd attempt to counter some details. But no, you'd rather folks not read it at all. Now why could that be, Hooper?

You keep throwing around words like "information". Its not the "information" portion that gets the crazy label, its the conclusions you draw from that information. Those conclusions are a product of your imagination.

Oh, I see, it's the CONCLUSIONS reached that are crazy. No examples of course, because you haven't read the material; no, your role is to throw sand in the eyes of a genuinely curious reader. Thankfully you're not very good at it.

Just look at your own posts and links.

You first. I can remember the material I wrote pretty well, so please be specific about well, anything.

Ok, thats not too crazy - the "media" has the ability to silence every person in lower Manhattan. That's the other side of the same coin.

Interesting logic. That's government training for you.

Uh, yeah. The idea that there's some underground bunker filled with nefarious evildoers telling the "media" what to show and what not to show in the paper, magazines, TV, radio and on the internet is not rational.

Wait, are you talking about the al Qaeda characters or someone else; people like these jokers maybe?:

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy

Source

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

William Casey, Head of the CIA after first staff meeting in 1981
Source

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." --CIA operative, discussing the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. Katherine the Great, by Deborah Davis

Now, back to you again:

No, its SOP to promote the truth. One of the reasons is because of what my sister witnessed.

You don't have a sister, and your nonexistent sister never saw a plane. You know it, I know it, and any readers who have followed our threads know it too.

Considered and dismissed. Can't you accept that everyone that exposes themselves to your missile, media, and CGI fanatasies has the same reaction? They can't all be "in on it", Langely ain't that big.

You haven't read the material as evidenced by your reluctance to discuss details. You make blanket statements and make the usual claims about the hoax being too big to succeed, yet it is not succeeding else we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm happy to know that drives you nuts.

reply to post by Yankee451

Who? Names please. Most of the people who saw planes were media employees, yes the same media who have been owned by intelligence services since the fifties.

Media Employees? Some 50 of my co-workers on the upper floors of building I was working in saw the plane(s)
that day including my boss. None of us worked for the media - we were at an oil refinery in Linfrn NJ

Have any more deluisions want to share....?

reply to post by thedman


How many more lies would you like to share? I didn't think you had any more in you.

In all our sparring, in all the threads where you were trying to prove the existence of planes, you never mentioned you were an "eye witness".

So, let me do the math...

After sparring with FDNY343 for many weeks he claimed he was an eye witness.
After sparring with Hooper for many weeks, he claimed his sister was an eye witness.
After sparring with you for many weeks, you claim you and a bunch of your co workers were eye witnesses.

If it were true, you three musketeers wouldn't have spent so much time getting your a@@es handed to you before you admitted you were witnesses; you would have opened with it instead of spending time with wimpy posts like this:

source

reply to post by Yankee451

How many more lies would you like to share? I didn't think you had any more in you.

Ahhh, the final desperate last act has started. When all else fails just accuse everyone of lying.

You're done now.