|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 10, 2007 17:16:48 GMT -4
Uh, I'll go with "No," Regis.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Apr 13, 2007 15:53:25 GMT -4
I won't go so far.
I can state with some certainty that "Dial-a-yield" is not part of the normal practice of controlled demolitions. That is to say, there is no body of experience with using this stuff or the planning sequence this stuff would be part of.
I can not say it is impossible for it to exist and for it to be used in some hypothetical demolitions. In fact, I have gone out of my way to indicated existing devices and future materials that have this capability, and the current thinking on their utility in certain situations.
These two statements exist within the larger problem I have with the theory that the WTC was demolished explosively. In no way does it correspond with standard methods or materials, nor is there a body of experience in doing that kind of demolitions under those kind of conditions. There is a body of experience in expedient combat demolitions, and there is a body of experience in booby-trap rigging, and there is a body of experience in the demolitions of buildings. There is no group, set of skills, manuals, specialized tools, or any of the other baggage of a body of experience and practice in secretly wiring a building to unexpectedly collapse in a manner superficially similar to a controlled demolitions but leaving little or no evidence of the work having occurred.
I can not say it is impossible. I can not say that there might not be methods adaptable to some of this task, and materials suited to it, and that it would not be possible for an inspired conspiracy to take the huge risks entailed in such an untested effort. However. I can also not say with absolute certainty that invisible pink unicorns were not yoked to the support columns and told telepathically to "pull hard, now!"
Absolute certainty is a game for first-year philosophy students. The rest of us get by on "To the best of our ability to determine it."
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 17, 2007 4:09:14 GMT -4
“That’s Felipe David [he points to an off screen projected slide explains how David was interviewed by NBC] and his story is exactly the same as what I’m telling you right now, nothing changed and I didn’t know him never saw him again after 9/11 and his story validated the whole thing.”
When did NBC interview David?
|
|
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 Apr 17, 2007 6:23:30 GMT -4
IIRC Rodriguez said this happened right after David came out of his coma 13 weeks after 9/11 so it would be around Dec. 11, '01. Rodriguez said something about David recognizing him on TV and IIRC mentioned the specific event. If you could discover the date of such an event around Dec 11, David's interview should have been a few days later. Watch the tape again to confirm my recollections and get more details.
Thanks for pointing out another contradiction that I had previously missed; Rodriguez indicated that David didn't know who he was till he saw him on TV, but in his affidavit he said he "knew" David. Do you know what perjury is?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 20, 2007 3:51:48 GMT -4
IIRC Rodriguez said this happened right after David came out of his coma 13 weeks after 9/11 so it would be around Dec. 11, '01. Rodriguez said something about David recognizing him on TV and IIRC mentioned the specific event. If you could discover the date of such an event around Dec 11, David's interview should have been a few days later. Watch the tape again to confirm my recollections and get more details. That's what I thought - it was after 9/11, but before Rodriguez saw him again. Rodriguez was making his comments in reference to the NBC interview with David, saying that he never saw David again after 9/11when he was corroborating his story in an interview with NBC later on. His point was that he did not meet with David before the NBC interview - it was independent, without any prior discussion between them. Makes sense. He isn't hiding the fact that he saw David after 9/11. Thanks for pointing out another contradiction that I had previously missed; Rodriguez indicated that David didn't know who he was till he saw him on TV, but in his affidavit he said he "knew" David. Do you know what perjury is? I do know what perjury is. And this isn't it. Now here you go again, misinterpreting his comments.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 20, 2007 4:00:09 GMT -4
I did (listen again) and it still sounds like he said ‘do not’ to me but the sound isn’t very clear.
"Did" is what I clearly hear. You can't make a valid claim on a word you simply think you hear him say.
|
|
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 Apr 20, 2007 7:18:13 GMT -4
I did (listen again) and it still sounds like he said ‘do not’ to me but the sound isn’t very clear. "Did" is what I clearly hear. You can't make a valid claim on a word you simply think you hear him say. As I already pointed out he said in an affidavit he referred to David as someone “whom I knew” when he came into the B1 office so it doesn’t make a difference if he said “didn’t know” or “don’t know” David in London. He either lied at the London presentation or perjured himself when he signed the affidavit and submitted it to a court. Still waiting for you to explain away him putting David on 2 different floors and not mentioning the pre-impact explosion till May 2005 despite a) speaking to a ‘journalist’ from the “ ‘truth’ movement” b) filing a +200 page RICO complaint and c) filing a request with the NYS AG for a new investigation all in 2004.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 21, 2007 5:36:04 GMT -4
As I already pointed out he said in an affidavit he referred to David as someone “whom I knew” when he came into the B1 office so it doesn’t make a difference if he said “didn’t know” or “don’t know” David in London. He either lied at the London presentation or perjured himself when he signed the affidavit and submitted it to a court. Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury you have to have had the mens rea to commit the act, and to have actually committed the actus reus."Mens rea" - the specific intent to make false statements. You have absolutely no evidence that he was intentionally making a false statement about knowing David. You can't even provide a valid motive for why he would even want to deliberately make a false statement about knowing David. Everybody has made honest mistakes - including you, me, and Rodriguez. Still waiting for you to explain away him putting David on 2 different floors I already addressed this, which you ignored. For example, what if David recently told Rodriguez that he had actually been on B2, and not B1, as previously stated? Or maybe there is another valid reason. You don't know if there is, but you just assume he's deliberately lying about it. If you really want to be more than a rumor monger, try and substantiate a few of the accusations you've let fly everywhere about Rodriguez. So far, you've made The National Enquirer look like the pinnacle of integrity, by comparison. and not mentioning the pre-impact explosion till May 2005 despite a) speaking to a ‘journalist’ from the “ ‘truth’ movement” b) filing a +200 page RICO complaint and c) filing a request with the NYS AG for a new investigation all in 2004. Rodriguez mentioned the pre-impact explosions in a 2002 Colombian TV interview, according to sources such as this..... www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/29110.htmI haven't yet located a video clip of the interview, which was in Spanish. Eventually it will surface, and prove your claim to be false. Not that your point had any merit anyway - saying something not mentioned earlier is not a lie.
|
|
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 Apr 21, 2007 13:45:15 GMT -4
As I already pointed out he said in an affidavit he referred to David as someone “whom I knew” when he came into the B1 office so it doesn’t make a difference if he said “didn’t know” or “don’t know” David in London. He either lied at the London presentation or perjured himself when he signed the affidavit and submitted it to a court. Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not deliberately. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury you have to have had the mens rea to commit the act, and to have actually committed the actus reus."Mens rea" - the specific intent to make false statements. You have absolutely no evidence that he was intentionally making a false statement about knowing David. You can't even provide a valid motive for why he would even want to deliberately make a false statement about knowing David. Everybody has made honest mistakes - including you, me, and Rodriguez. Saying whether or not he had know David prior to 9/11 was not a “statement of interpretation” are you proposing that he temporarily forgot that he hadn’t known him? Not very likely but no I can’t prove that wasn’t what happened, let’s say it’s 99.7% certain he committed perjury. Why would he lie about that? I have no idea, but he seems to be a pathological liar. He told me he was a college graduate but the school in Puerto Rico he claims to have gotten his degree from said no one by the name of “William Rodriguez” graduated from there in the early 80’s he moved to NYC in ’82 and would have around 17 in 1979. No I replied to that which you missed or ignored, see post # 43 on the previous page. I wrote: "As I pointed out David himself said he was on B1. Perhaps you should make sure you are familiar with the evidence already presented before making unsavory suggestions about me.
Is it your theory that David a) was in an elevator at the time of the explosion or that b) after having his face and arms severely burnt he ran up a flight of stairs and then into an office full of strangers?" Indeed one of the places David said he’d been on B1 was the Artic Beacon article you cited (link below) quoting his interview on Columbian TV “I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot”. According to the article Rodriguez gave the author the tapes. The article also indicated that David had been “Standing in front of a freight elevator on sub level 1 near the office where Rodriguez and 14 others were huddled together when the explosion erupted below” No my claims are all very well documented, the only person making unsubstantiated claims on this thread is you. LOL - How carefully did you read the article? It confirms that Rodriguez only came forward with his pre-impact explosion story in 2005: “ Recently, Rodriguez, declared a national hero for helping save numerous lives on the morning of 9/11, including David and Giambanco, said he heard a massive basement explosion seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors”. The article was published July 13, 2005, do you think by “recently” the author meant ‘a few months ago’ or ‘ three years ago’? The article never even indicated that Rodriguez had been interviewed by the Colombian station, only that David and another worker had. I’ve looked for it too, it doesn’t seem to be available on the Net. Rodriguez has copies and uploads clips to his site and youtube you’d think if it bolstered his case he would have posted it by now. In any case when and if it surfaces I doubt it prove me wrong for reasons stated above. It’s not necessarily a lie, but someone radically changing there description of an event 4 years after the fact is strongly indicative their new version is untrue unless a reasonable explanation can be given as to why they had previously omitted crucial facts. - Why did he blame OBL for his suffering in 2002. - Why didn’t he mention the explosion in his RICO complaint even thought about 40 pages of “evidence” was presented? Why did he say explosives in the basement had been detonated over an hour after the impacts, but make no mention of the one he felt before? Why did he say he came to believe 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ due to his “study” of publicly available information about what happened that day but make no mention of his personal experience? -Why didn’t he mention the explosion when he was interviewed by the same author of the Artic Beacon article you cited? - Why didn’t his lawyer mention it even though he was interviewed at least twice?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 27, 2007 3:20:22 GMT -4
Saying whether or not he had know David prior to 9/11 was not a “statement of interpretation” are you proposing that he temporarily forgot that he hadn’t known him? Any number of reasons could explain it. Even a single letter typo error could have changed “whom I know” into “whom I knew” Not very likely but no I can’t prove that wasn’t what happened, let’s say it’s 99.7% certain he committed perjury. No, you say it's 99.7% certain. And I'd really like to know how you managed to come up with your "99.7%" figure..... Why would he lie about that? I have no idea, but he seems to be a pathological liar. That's quite amusing, since you originally said.... –– Why Lie? ––
What are Rodriguez’s motives for embellishing what happened that morning? My best guess is a desire for fame and fortune especially the former...So which is it, lenbrazil? Is he "lying" because of his "desire for fame and fortune", or because he's a "pathological liar"?? When you think he "embellished" his story, you argued that he intentionally did it because of his "desire for fame and fortune". When it didn't "embellish" his story, you argued that he changed it because he's a "pathological liar". When he toned down his story (recalling David's wounds), you simply ignored it. After I first brought it up, you said...
"He accounts of Davi's injuries have been fairly consistent thus I believe they are probably accurate."
To which I replied....
No. He first said "all of his skin" was off his body. Since then, he has said his skin was hanging loose from his face and arms. Quite a difference between the two accounts.
You responded with...
"He did tone down description of David's injuries since 9/11that doesn't change the fact that he has contradicted himself numerous times...."
Do you know what a non sequitur is?
Please comment on your understanding of this concept, as it applies to your sentence.... He told me he was a college graduate but the school in Puerto Rico he claims to have gotten his degree from said no one by the name of “William Rodriguez” graduated from there in the early 80’s he moved to NYC in ’82 and would have around 17 in 1979. So you've personally corresponded with him? Assuming that is true, can you provide any source(s) that validate your claims? I haven't heard him mention his academic background before. Is it your theory that David a) was in an elevator at the time of the explosion or that b) after having his face and arms severely burnt he ran up a flight of stairs and then into an office full of strangers? Indeed one of the places David said he’d been on B1 was the Artic Beacon article you cited (link below) quoting his interview on Columbian TV “I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot”. According to the article Rodriguez gave the author the tapes. The article also indicated that David had been “Standing in front of a freight elevator on sub level 1 near the office where Rodriguez and 14 others were huddled together when the explosion erupted below” Once again, you're sidestepping my point. For the last time - Is it possible David talked to Rodriguez recently, to tell him that he was actually on B2 at the time, then came out of the freight elevator on B1, and ran towards the others?I don't have a "theory" about where David was at the time. It is only very recently Rodriguez said David was on B2, and - AFAIK - was his most recent account of David's location. You mentioned your prior contact with Rodriguez. So why don't you simply ask him about this issue directly? Because at this point, you're just making an unsubstantiated accusation. No my claims are all very well documented, the only person making unsubstantiated claims on this thread is you. Your argument is rife with speculation and rumor; prejudicial to the core. "Well documented"? LOL! Now, that's a good one. LOL - How carefully did you read the article? It confirms that Rodriguez only came forward with his pre-impact explosion story in 2005: How do you know he " only came forward.....in 2005" about this? “Recently, Rodriguez, declared a national hero for helping save numerous lives on the morning of 9/11, including David and Giambanco, said he heard a massive basement explosion seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors”. He said it recently. That's all we are told. If the article said "Recently, Rodriguez spoke for the first time about..." or something similar, then it would be quite reasonable to make an assumption such as yours. It's another one of your unsubstantiated claims.. The article never even indicated that Rodriguez had been interviewed by the Colombian station, only that David and another worker had. Did you read the complete article? It says.... In the 2002 Colombian television taped interviews where Rodriguez also adds his 9/11 account, both David and Giambanco, located in different basement locations, tell gut-wrenching and heart breaking stories of survival from what they both thought to be from a massive underground explosion, not an airplane strike 90 floors above. I’ve looked for it too, it doesn’t seem to be available on the Net. Rodriguez has copies and uploads clips to his site and youtube you’d think if it bolstered his case he would have posted it by now. In any case when and if it surfaces I doubt it prove me wrong for reasons stated above. We'll know for sure, hopefully soon. It’s not necessarily a lie, but someone radically changing there description of an event 4 years after the fact is strongly indicative their new version is untrue unless a reasonable explanation can be given as to why they had previously omitted crucial facts. Providing new details is not "radically changing there description of an event..", whether those details come out the same day, or several years later. You haven't even made your case about what he specifically omitted, if anything. - Why did he blame OBL for his suffering in 2002. Why would that matter? - Why didn’t he mention the explosion in his RICO complaint even thought about 40 pages of “evidence” was presented? Explosives are noted several times in the document. Explosions specifically linked to the basement are mentioned at least twice (pgs. 10 and 157). If there had been nothing mentioned in the complaint about explosions and/or explosives inside the buildings, then it would be valid to raise questions. The RICO complaint does not go into any details of the events which took place during the time of the explosions, either in the basement, or anywhere else. That is, no mention is made of Felipe David whatsoever. Nor does he mention the walls or ceilings cracking. Nothing about being on the B1level at the time. Not a word, even about "loud rumbling"! So why would he mention the pre-impact explosions when he didn't even mention David or any other details about it? Why did he say explosives in the basement had been detonated over an hour after the impacts, but make no mention of the one he felt before? In the RICO complaint? Why did he say he came to believe 9/11 was an ‘inside job’ due to his “study” of publicly available information about what happened that day but make no mention of his personal experience? Source? And again, why would that even be relevant? -Why didn’t he mention the explosion when he was interviewed by the same author of the Artic Beacon article you cited? Once again, if he didn't mention something (like the explosion), it doesn't mean he is lying. What specific interview are you citing, btw? - Why didn’t his lawyer mention it even though he was interviewed at least twice? Already explained in my points about the RICO complaint.
|
|
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 Apr 29, 2007 10:47:18 GMT -4
Saying whether or not he had know David prior to 9/11 was not a “statement of interpretation” are you proposing that he temporarily forgot that he hadn’t known him? Any number of reasons could explain it. Even a single letter typo error could have changed “whom I know” into “whom I knew” Wow you have a remarkable ability to rationalize anything, that was a court affidavit not an internet posting, but yeah I guess anything is possible, so now it’s 97.2% certain he committed perjury. That was an attempt at being ‘light hearted’ that I imagine everyone else got. It wasn’t meant as an exact figure, just as something slightly less than 100% I presumed that was obvious. Why did you start your reply with ‘no’? “No” what? Did you mean 'now'? These aren’t mutually exclusive; magicians are professional BS artists I wouldn’t find it surprising if many of them were BSters off stage too. If someone would lie about 9/11 just to get attention it wouldn’t surprise me if they would lie for other reasons that perhaps would only make sense to them or a mental health professional. Another way to look at it is if someone lies for no apparent reason (like a pathological liar) it’s not much of a leap to imagine they might also lie if they had a specific reason to. In any case I was speculating both times, he lied I’m not sure why. You love citing Wikipedia, here’s what they have to say: “In psychology, mythomania (also known as pseudologia fantastica or pathological lying) is a condition involving compulsive lying by a person with no obvious motivation. The affected person might believe their lies to be truth, and may have to create elaborate myths to reconcile them with other facts. Among famous mythomaniacs in history was King Frederik VII of Denmark.
A pathological liar is someone who often embellishes his or her stories in a way that he or she believes will impress people.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_liar I speculated as to whether their might be a correlation between Rodriguez’s PTSD and his embellishing of his story. A study found that “A significant number” Vietnam vets being treated by the Veteran’s Administration for PTSD exagerated their combat exposure. Of 100 patients claiming combat exposure only 41% according to documentation actually had it. bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/6/467?ijkey=ee1fa671f5ee8155a9b36e96ec6d4de60e8b12e0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha To be quite honest I hadn’t noticed, but even after you’d pointed it out it didn’t seem significant to me, still doesn’t. Sad attempt at a SpitfireX imitation there. The statement wasn’t a non sequitur. I never said he embellished his entire story. He DID embellish most of it and contradict himself various times in the process, having toned down one aspect does change that. You’re making a 747 out of a Cessna. Recently he said “"All the skin had been burnt off his arms and it was hanging loosely like a flapping shirt sleeve. Parts of his face were missing, too” www.theargus.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1219050.0.interview_the_untold_story_of_september_11.php You can e-mail him and ask or you can ask Kevin Ryan or Anne Machon (David Shayler’s wife) who received CC:’s of all our correspondence. If you PM me your e-mail address I’ll forward the message to you. Another point which makes his claim more suspicious, if it were true why hadn’t he or anybody else mention it before? I didn't side step it I said why I thought it was unlikely 1) David himself said he had been on B1, in the same article the author said he had been “Standing in front of a freight elevator on sub level 1” 2) I couldn’t tell if you were proposing David was in the elevator at the time of the explosion or ‘standing in front of a freight elevator on sub level 2’ Neither scenario makes sense, the former seems unlikely because neither he nor anyone else ever suggested he was in an elevator before and Rodriguez didn’t say he’d been in an elevator but on B2. The latter is unlikely for reasons already spelled out. Also Rodriguez has made no mention of further contact with David. I did but he hasn’t gotten back to me. I’d venture to guess you’re the only person here who thinks so (with 2 possible exceptions). You can object to my reasoning but my claims as to what Rodriguez and others did and didn’t say is all well documented Remember what I said about your extraordinary ability to rationalize? That was a reasonable inference, the author said Rodriguez had recently said this and gave no indication he had said so earlier despite describing him as “the first eye-witness to go public about the north tower basement explosions”. But you’re right it is never explicitly said he had not said this earlier. However 1) as pointed out in my paper the same author indicated that Rodriguez’s story first broke in June 2005 www.proliberty.com/observer/20050714.htm 2) You are the person who cited the article as indicating Rodriguez had gone public with his claim as far back as 2002 (see post #52 above) “It's another one of your unsubstantiated claims.” OK you got me there, you finally found a legitimate mistake or error I made on this topic. How can you be so sure, Rodriguez and Syzmanski have copies and haven’t posted them yet. Describing a noise first as a rumble that sound like moving furniture and then years later as a massive explosion that 1) threw you upwards 2) cracked the walls 3) set off the sprinklers 4) cause the false ceiling to collapse 5) sounded like a generator exploding 6) you later thought might have been a truck bomb is a pretty radical change. He specifically omitted the six details mention above and that he felt a pre-impact explosion or even having felt any explosions at all he didn’t mention this when interviewed by Brown on 9/11/01 or when interviewed by him on 9/11/02 nor when he appeared with David on a NYC Spanish TV channel in 2002 nor in his 2004 RICO complaint nor in the interview he gave to Syzmanki after filing the suit nor in his 2004 petition to the NY State Attorney General nor in the amended petition filed a month later. It wouldn’t make sense to blame OBL if he had felt a massive explosion go off in the basement just before impact* especially after hearing nothing about this in the media where the theory that the impacts and resulting fires alone had brought the buildings down had been presented since “day one”. * Not to mention the “strange noises” he supposedly head coming from a closed floor which frightened him so much that he didn’t open the door. Oh wait there another fact he omitted from earlier accounts. Yes but nothing is said about a pre-impact explosion rather it is said explicitly that the basement explosions happened over an hour after the crashes. Begging the question, if any of the above were relevant and/or were evidence why weren’t they mentioned? Since Rodriguez started saying this “inside jobbers” have been going on about how his comments were a “smoking gun” which “blew” the “official story”. Why mention the “pre-impact explosion”? That’s an extraordinarily dumb question; if it were really true it would be proof that the attack had been an “inside job”. Give us a good reason for leaving those details out. He later claimed he had been trying to tell them for years but was “censored” by the mass media and the 9/11 Commission and that this censorship motivated the lawsuit. I don’t get your point about David; a pre-impact explosion would be proof of an “inside job” with or without him. You are to rationalizations what McDonald’s is to hamburgers. Yes as I’ve said a few times already. The RICO complaint as I’ve said a few times already. Because when spelling his evidence he made no mention of his supposed personal experience which would if true prove the theory he was trying to prove. Saying he became convinced by “his study of facts available in the public domain” that 9/11 was an “inside job” seems to exclude the notion he was convinced by personal experience or had any inside knowledge. The Syzmanski post lawsuit interview, see my paper. See my reply. Why wouldn't a lawyer who filed a lawsuit that was basiclly a publicity stunt with little chance of success to draw attention a 'conspiracy theory' not present strong evidence in favor of the theory in the lawsuit or in media interviews?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 4, 2007 4:42:05 GMT -4
Before replying to your last post, I want to address your original claim.....
What are Rodriguez’s motives for embellishing what happened that morning? My best guess is a desire for fame and fortune especially the former.
And the following ....
then after 9/11 he was proclaimed a national hero honored by the president and congress of the United States. But then like many other people who became well know for their actions that morning his “15 minutes of fame” faded. He was unemployed for three years and was even homeless for a while having to sleep in his car . Then he discovered the “ ‘truth’ movement” or the “ ‘truth’ movement” discovered him and he became well known in the movement but he was just one of many “truthers” of note, his tale of a pre-impact explosion however turned him into one of the movements stars. He went on speaking tours around the world and even met high level government officials in countries such as Venezuela and Malaysia; to millions of “truthers” he is a hero, sure beats being a homeless unemployed ex-janitor sleeping in your car under a bridge.
In a nutshell, you argue that "his “15 minutes of fame” faded" was quickly followed up with three long years of great personal hardship. Then, most likely due to his "desire for fame and fortune", he "discovered the “ ‘truth’ movement” , or vice versa - which he envisioned (or hoped) would become the ideal path towards his ultimate goal of fame and fortune.
So - if fame and fortune was always his main goal....why didn't he simply take the easy route? Just go along for the ride, as a nationally recognized hero of 9/11, and stick with the official version?
Go on all the big-time talk shows. Write a book (with a pro scribe), flog it on TV and the web, detailing his amazing heroic story. It soon becomes a #1 best seller. Then it becomes a major motion picture, bigger than Flight 93 or Stone's flick.
He would have become a huge celebrity and a multimillionaire by now. Mainstream media would eat it all up.
But he didn't, did he?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on May 4, 2007 5:59:29 GMT -4
Don't mean to butt in Turbonium, but with that line of logic, if Rodriguez had solid and convincing evidence that 911 was an inside job, he could just as easily become every bit of a hero or more, just for different reasons. Also, It appears he is posting in this thread: forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81214
|
|
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 4, 2007 8:32:35 GMT -4
Before replying to your last post, I want to address your original claim..... What are Rodriguez’s motives for embellishing what happened that morning? My best guess is a desire for fame and fortune especially the former. And the following .... then after 9/11 he was proclaimed a national hero honored by the president and congress of the United States. But then like many other people who became well know for their actions that morning his “15 minutes of fame” faded. He was unemployed for three years and was even homeless for a while having to sleep in his car . Then he discovered the “ ‘truth’ movement” or the “ ‘truth’ movement” discovered him and he became well known in the movement but he was just one of many “truthers” of note, his tale of a pre-impact explosion however turned him into one of the movements stars. He went on speaking tours around the world and even met high level government officials in countries such as Venezuela and Malaysia; to millions of “truthers” he is a hero, sure beats being a homeless unemployed ex-janitor sleeping in your car under a bridge.In a nutshell, you argue that "his “15 minutes of fame” faded" was quickly followed up with three long years of great personal hardship. Then, most likely due to his "desire for fame and fortune", he "discovered the “ ‘truth’ movement” , or vice versa - which he envisioned (or hoped) would become the ideal path towards his ultimate goal of fame and fortune. So - if fame and fortune was always his main goal....why didn't he simply take the easy route? Just go along for the ride, as a nationally recognized hero of 9/11, and stick with the official version? Go on all the big-time talk shows. Write a book (with a pro scribe), flog it on TV and the web, detailing his amazing heroic story. It soon becomes a #1 best seller. Then it becomes a major motion picture, bigger than Flight 93 or Stone's flick. He would have become a huge celebrity and a multimillionaire by now. Mainstream media would eat it all up. But he didn't, did he? It’s unclear if the attention paid him faded due to a lack of interest on his part or because of a lack of interest by the media, there were lots of 9/11 heroes you haven’t produced evidence he could have differentiated himself to the degree you think he could have. I’ve seen no evidence he had any media savvy back then, he was a janitor who couldn’t speak English that well and we must also consider the effects of his PTSD. You make it sound like the media shunned him because he rejected “the official version” but there is no evidence of him having done so till 2004. Also I’m not the one who said he wanted to be famous, he said so himself. The evidence that he lied is overwhelming, I don't need to go into the exact psychology of why he did it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 11, 2007 0:33:46 GMT -4
Don't mean to butt in Turbonium, Your comments are always welcome, twinstead. You aren't butting in. but with that line of logic, if Rodriguez had solid and convincing evidence that 911 was an inside job, he could just as easily become every bit of a hero or more, just for different reasons. First of all, what would you consider "solid and convincing evidence"? And how would Rodriguez have possibly obtained such evidence? AFAIK, the only evidence that any of the survivors have is their first hand eyewitness testimony. My point is that Rodriguez would have achieved far greater personal fame and fortune, much more easily and quickly, simply by sticking to the official story. The mainstream media has always embraced the official 9/11 story, and continue to accept it as the gospel truth. Furthermore, they largely ignore the "inside job" or "Government conspiracy" arguments. On the (very rare) occasions when it comes up, they inevitably scoff about it being "an utterly prepostorus idea". Anyone who supports such a position is treated with utter contempt. The 2006 movie United 93, which cost about $15 million to make, has already grossed over $76 million worldwide. It became profitable within the first 2-3 weeks after its release. “My basic principle is that you don't make decisions because they are easy; you don't make them because they are cheap; you don't make them because they're popular; you make them because they're right.”
- Theodore Hesburgh
|
|