lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 20, 2007 9:34:02 GMT -4
I have NEVER SAID anything along those lines though you keep aledging I have. Plese cite where I said this. On more than one occasion I have said the opposite that i recognize he acted bravely but that doesn't change the fact he lied and embellished his story on several ocassions i.e. honesty and bravery have little to do with each other. I must have missed all of those comments about his bravery. Were they embedded somewhere within your voluminous accusatory posts? I believe I have said this more than twice but a quick search turned up the two occurrences. I’m not going to wate my time combing through the entire thread for other occurrences. The 1st is from the paper itself. Now see if you cite any examples of where I said anything negative about him OTHER than that he is a liar (especially concerning 9/11) ? “People have asked me how I could doubt the word of a nationally and internationally recognized hero like Rodriguez. I have two answers for that, one is that there is no direct connection between heroism and honesty the other is that I do believe him, I believe the 2001 – 2004 William Rodriguez not the post May 25, 2005 William Rodriguez” - post 16 page 2 “Would I have the courage to save others? I don't know I never disputed he acted bravely but as you point out no one expected the building to collapse.” Post #32 – pg 3
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 20, 2007 9:42:48 GMT -4
Who besides Rodriguez says its sealed? Have you or anybody you know filed a FOIA request to get the transcript? The 9/11 Commission, which closed on August 21, 2004, has transferred legal custody of its records to the National Archives. In accordance with the Federal Records Act, the Commission has established a general restriction from public access on these records until 2009. Because the Commission was part of the legislative branch, its records are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).www.archives.gov/research/9-11-commission/Does that make it clear enough? You made it sound this was done specifically to Rodriguez’s testimony, the citation above is more along the lines of what I said “It is my understanding witnesses whose testimony was not considered especially relevant was not published, and that this includes a good number of witnesses.” As I pointed out he didn't seem to have testified secretly because we have press accounts of what he said and makers of a film about him have video (or film) clips of his testimony. Perhaps you could contact the filmmakers and ask them for a copy or to see it next time you’re in NY. Supposedly the records will be released in 2 years anyway. Why seal all unpublished material till 2009? I have no idea, there probablly is some lagal reason for this, have you tried asking?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 20, 2007 9:51:04 GMT -4
Rodriguez simply opened doors on the fire stairs far below the impact/fire zone* accompanied by fire fighters. His stated objective was to help his friends. We can contrast that with Brian Clark who left the relative safety of the stairs and on his own navigated his way through the wreckage of an impact floor (81st floor South Tower) to save the floor’s only survivor, a total stranger**. Is this an example of how you previously acknowledged Rodriguez for acting bravely? And to think that I could have somehow overlooked the other times you showered him with such praise. He helped save many strangers, but he had really wanted to save his friends. What nerve! Now, if I was in a burning building, and some of my friends were also inside, the last thing on my mind would be wanting to help them out, instead of a bunch of complete strangers. And if my family was also inside the building? Hah! I wouldn't even think of saving them, until after I had saved the strangers and any of my friends. Yes. I would save strangers first. Friends second. Family last. I have my priorities in order. Once again you put your spin on my comments, I was saying why I think Clark acted more bravely than Rodriguez, not that your hero hadn’t acted heroically. The main part of that was because the former unlike the latter actually went into a dangerous part of the building. But I believe it takes more bravery to save a stranger than a friend, not risking your like to save friends or family isn't heroic. I think most of us would risk our lives to save an immediate relative or close friend and would be more willing to risk or lives to save a more distant relative or friend than a total stranger.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 21, 2007 0:42:32 GMT -4
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jun 16, 2007 7:55:23 GMT -4
Turbo
Should we take the fact that you haven't replied to this thread in nearly a month as a tact admission that Rodriguez's credebility is in serious doubt.
Len
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 21, 2007 22:31:29 GMT -4
Turbo Should we take the fact that you haven't replied to this thread in nearly a month as a tact admission that Rodriguez's credebility is in serious doubt. Len Not in the least. I've just been too busy recently for anything more than a few quickie posts. I didn’t notice any obvious errors during his Aaron Brown interview that day. I've only seen a transcript of this interview. Is the original audio available anywhere? Have you heard it? After 20+ years in the US his command of English should have been good enough to figure out the difference between positive and negative sentences i.e. “Someone I do not know / Someone who I knew”. "Should have been good enough", does not necessarily mean it was good enough. My Spanish uncle has been living in the States for over 50 years, and he still can't put together a single grammatically correct sentence in English. And he's certainly not the only one. I teach English even my dimmest students get it after their 1st class. They get the difference between past and present tense, even with irregular verbs like “know” after the 1st class in which the subject is taught (after a week or two). Even for people with far less speaking ability in a second language that Rodriguez in English, mistakes and confusion about basic grammar and vocabulary stem almost exclusively from “1st language interference”, but negatives and simple past tense work the same way in Spanish as they do in English. That's simply not true. My uncle mixes up past and present tense all the time when he speaks English. Many sources also acknowledge it's a common error..... The majority of Spanish-to-English errors are made at the syntactical level. A lot of it simply has to do with the different sentence structures in the two languages. Writers will often translate word for word from Spanish if they are unsure of the structure in English. The most common syntactical mistakes, however, have to do with tense. Tense is perhaps the most difficult task to master when learning a second language.
According to Julie Mars, former Director of ESL at UNM, using correct verb tense is one of the major problems students have. This proved to be the case with my students. When writing in English, their tendency is to default back to present verb tense when they are not sure. Present becomes the default tense because it is the first English verb tense learned by ESL students. At times, though, my student’s choice of tense seemed to be completely random. The biggest problem that I found in my students was that they would not stay in one tense consistently. Take the following, for example: “This experience starts when he was a child and lives in an orphanage because he did not know anything about his family. In the orphanage he had a friend name Alice that play with him…” Tense is a difficult problem to address. The only way to improve on tense is to practice.www.vccaedu.org/inquiry/inquiry-spring2003/i-81-williams.html Your case against Rodriguez is so flimsy that it's laughable. And in regard to this specific issue, it's entirely ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 21, 2007 22:48:11 GMT -4
Your case against Rodriguez is so flimsy that it's laughable. And in regard to this specific issue, it's entirely ridiculous.
Did you bother reading the rather exhustive work I linked to above? Even Rodriguez himself hasn't been able to refute it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 21, 2007 22:58:44 GMT -4
Haven't most of the points raised in your link already been discussed on this thread?
Are there specific issues that haven't been addressed yet?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 21, 2007 23:16:14 GMT -4
Did you actually read it to find out?
|
|
|
Post by cr on Sept 30, 2007 23:13:17 GMT -4
Well, it seems Rodriguez is continuing the lecture circuit to tell "the truth" about the explosions that occurred before the planes hit the towers. At least, that's how local ads are hyping his upcoming appearance at the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus on October 5th. Curiously, the ad also notes that Rodriguez's heroism on 9/11, saving 15 people, has been cited by the White House five times. My first comment was that some of those citations may have been to groups of people, not all specifically to Rodriguez. But my next, more important comment was why, if the government has been lying about 9/11 and indeed perpetrated the attacks, why should White House citations actually be used in a favourable light? Funny how CT's like to use things to their advantage when it suits them, regardless of source, yet reject those same sources when it goes against what they're hyping.
Note, it may be Rodriguez's agent/handler that's doing this, and not Rodriguez himself. Anyway, if anyone wants to hear Rodriguez in person, go to Madison, Wisconsin next weekend.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 1, 2007 1:17:15 GMT -4
Willie's a member of JREF and posts there on a semi-regular basis. Interestingly enough, though being challenged too, he still hasn't refuted any of Mark Robert's paper. Instead he changes the subject or abandons the thread. I wonder why, after all if he's telling the truth it should be easy to show where Mark is wrong.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 25, 2009 16:16:21 GMT -4
Since 2005 William Rodriguez has told whoever would listen that he brought his lawsuit and became involved in the “‘truth’ movement” because “the testimony I gave the [9/11] commission behind closed doors last year was omitted from the final report.” He claimed his “statements…directly contradict the government story” (1) Remember that old adage about having to be careful about what you wish for? In Rodriguez’s case that should be amended to “be careful about what you PRETEND to wish for because you just might get it”. The commission released the hand written notes of James Miller and George Delgrosso the investigators who interviewed him on June 9, 2004 and Miller’s typed up summary. They were obtained and put online by debunker Mike Williams (2). Not only has Rodriguez not challenged their authenticity but he released his copies and they match and the blogger who posted them claims they “vindicate” the 9/11 hero (3). However it is further evidence he was not being truthful because he told the comission nothing that “directly contradict[ed] the government story”. According to the typed summary: "Rodriguez said…he was in the B1 sublevel ABM office speaking to Anthony Saltamachia when the plane struck the North Tower (WTC 1). He immediately thought the explosion was caused by a generator. Shortly after the first explosion a second explosion rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse. Following these explosions Felipe David, who was severely burned, ran into the office. Rodriguez said there was a third explosion and he believed then the explosions were caused by an earthquake." So he indicated “the first explosion” happened “when the plane struck the North Tower”. Let’s not forget that there no record of him claiming before May 2005 that there was a pre-impact explosion from below. There wasn’t even any mention of it in his October 2004 RICO complaint or his or his lawyer’s interviews in that and the following month (4). There are other contradictions; neither commission interviewer noted him making any comments about the damaged caused by or intensity of the first blast however the second one “rocked the building and caused the office's false ceiling to collapse” (3a summary) “Bld shakes false ceiling collapse” (3a notes) “large explosion ceiling collapsed walls cracked” (3b). In latter retellings however the first explosion was the more powerful one which cracked the walls and brought down the ceiling. Just under a year later on May 25, 2005 he told the American Free Press the 2nd explosion shook the building and cracked the walls but after the first “The building shook, the ceiling fell, and some of the sprinklers began spraying.” (4) In June 2006 he told Alex Jones: “As I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 like chitchatting and all of a sudden we hear PAAH very strong BOOM!!! An explosion so hard that it pushed us UPWARDS, UPWARDS!!…The explosion was so hard that all the walls cracked the false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated and when I was going to verbalize it was a generator we hear BOOM! All the way at the top" (4) In an interview with the makers of Loose Change he stated more explicitly a version contradicting his commission testimony. The first explosion was now far more powerful than the first: “All of a sudden we hear BOOM! (claps hands together at waist level loudly) and I said to myself ‘Oh my God! I think it was a generator’ and I was going to verbalize it and when I finish saying that in my mind I hear poooh (claps hands less loudly than before over head) right on top pretty far away…” (4) In several of his subsequent retellings Rodriguez mentioned stopping on the 33rd floor were his company had an office after leaving the firemen behind on the 27th floor and hearing strange inexplicable noises on the 34th floor. In at least one of those accounts he mentioned saving a woman who had passed out. I pointed out various inconsistencies and other problems with the different versions in my paper (4). Though he discussed going from the 27th floor to the 39th before turning back and meeting PA police officer he knew on the 36th he seems not to have mentioned anything about the 33rd or 34th floors to the commission’s investigators (3 a & b) . 1] www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_lies_under.html 2] 911myths.com/index.php/Image:NYC_Box4_William_Rodriguez.pdf - In the report Miller is described as a “Professional Staff Member” and Delgrosso as an “Investigator” [ www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf pgs xiii – xiv, PDF pgs 13 – 14] but for simplicity’s sake I describe them both as investigators. 3] 911blogger.com/node/19439 Rodriguez used to post on this blog and sent his copies to “Reprehensor” the administrator a) Miller’s notes and summary - www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/Rodriguez.pdf b) Delgrosso notes - www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/Rodriguez-2.pdf 4] See my paper on pg 2 for links to his other subsequent statements
|
|