|
Post by turbonium on Mar 31, 2007 7:27:18 GMT -4
A massive strawman nowhere did I say he embellished every aspect of his story. . Not a strawman at all. Your author accuses him of embellishing his story, and strongly suggests he does it for personal fame and fortune. You and your author choose to ignore the fact that he has greatly toned down his account of David, obviously because it contradicts the notion that he is embellishing his later accounts. He accounts of Davi's injuries have been fairly consistent thus I believe they are probably accurate. 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. As I said, his original account of David was inaccurate, while his subsequent accounts were accurate. This is verified because we have photos of David post-9/11 in recovery. That's also why it's a flimsy, petty argument to hold up his orginal comments about the explosions as "the truth", and accuse him of "lying" and "embellishing" his later accounts. It's also done with an entirely malicious intent. And reveals who the actual liar is. Maybe we should speculate on why your author has such resentment towards Rodriguez! Is he consumed with jealous hatred of the praise that Rodriguez has garnered - from the White House, to the many people around the world, who admire what he did on 9/11? Is your author ashamed of something from his past that causes him to lash out at others who many people consider brave? Did your author once run out of a burning building, too afraid to save others nearby, still inside, and screaming for help? If you had been trapped in the tower on 9/11, would your author have the courage that Rodriguez had? Would he save your life? Or would he weasel out, just to save his own skin? He'd stab you in the back before he'd ever help you.
|
|
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 Mar 31, 2007 10:19:17 GMT -4
On the last, if you manage to find a report from a professional demolitions company saying "After the work was finished and all of our people had left the building, we waited until forty-five minutes before the scheduled shot and lit off a test shot." That's nonsense. A standard CD is fully known to the public, well in advance. There is no need to work within the constraints of a covert operation. Remember, you've been asking for multiple explosives on multiple floors. What, again, do you think could be done with those preset charges if the "test shot" went amiss? To say it again - they can make the necessary adjustments. As I posted earlier.... In one exterior column, supporting the north section of the Dome, two holes each contained two-thirds of a pound of explosives. The detonation blew portions of the column to smithereens, revealing thick rebar, about 3 to 4 inches thick.
"We actually can reduce the (level) of explosives," Loizeaux said, realizing the amount of explosives had taken quite a bite. Another article describes adjustments as follows... Such materials can be used in a variety of explosive and incendiary devices and enable one to precisely adjust the produced blast parameters to defeat specific targetswww.dodsbir.net/selections/abs011/dtraabs011.htmThe CD crew "actually can reduce the (level) of explosives", as Loizeaux noted. That doesn't mean they have to go into the building and take some of the explosives out. They can remotely adjust the amount of explosives that detonate for the CD. Remember how test shots were explained?... "Test shot results don't alter the lay pattern of the explosives in the building, but rather are used to determine the proper ratio of explosive charge weight to the mass of the structural elements of the building."The ratio is adjusted, if required. Not by packing more explosives in, or taking some out. The levels of explosive charges already placed are adjusted remotely. What rubbish, provide evidence to back your notion that the explosives can be ajusted remotely and that explosives aren't removed what do you think 'reducing the level' of explosives or alterating "the proper ratio of (their) weight to the mass...of the building" means. Since reducing the amount of explosives is a cost savings messure why would the uneeded explosives be left in place? Your concrete pulverization seems to indicate they used far more explosives than needed. What indication is there the explosives are installed before the tests?
|
|
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 Mar 31, 2007 10:33:46 GMT -4
A massive strawman nowhere did I say he embellished every aspect of his story. . Not a strawman at all. Your author accuses him of embellishing his story, and strongly suggests he does it for personal fame and fortune. You and your author choose to ignore the fact that he has greatly toned down his account of David, obviously because it contradicts the notion that he is embellishing his later accounts. He accounts of Davi's injuries have been fairly consistent thus I believe they are probably accurate. 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. As I said, his original account of David was inaccurate, while his subsequent accounts were accurate. This is verified because we have photos of David post-9/11 in recovery. That's also why it's a flimsy, petty argument to hold up his orginal comments about the explosions as "the truth", and accuse him of "lying" and "embellishing" his later accounts. It's also done with an entirely malicious intent. And reveals who the actual liar is. Maybe we should speculate on why your author has such resentment towards Rodriguez! Is he consumed with jealous hatred of the praise that Rodriguez has garnered - from the White House, to the many people around the world, who admire what he did on 9/11? Is your author ashamed of something from his past that causes him to lash out at others who many people consider brave? Did your author once run out of a burning building, too afraid to save others nearby, still inside, and screaming for help? If you had been trapped in the tower on 9/11, would your author have the courage that Rodriguez had? Would he save your life? Or would he weasel out, just to save his own skin? He'd stab you in the back before he'd ever help you. As I've made clear I'm the author. 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. If the above is the best you can do you've lost. He did tone down description of David's injuries since 9/11 that doesn't change the fact that he has contradicted himself numerous times including putting David on 2 different floors and lying about having seen him after 9/11 and not saying anything about a pre-impact explosion till 2005 after having previously filed a RICO complaint in which he said explosives in basement were detonated more than an hour AFTER the impacts and that his belief that 9/11 was an "inside job" based on his "study of 9-11" rather than personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 31, 2007 16:40:54 GMT -4
He'd stab you in the back before he'd ever help you. Leaving out, as Len pointed out, that he'd have to stab himself in the back for this to be true, are you serious? Even assuming Len wouldn't have the courage to save people from a potential lethal situation, which I don't think we can assume regardless of his beliefs on Rodriguez, there's a long range between that and stabbing someone in the back. Are you actually a paranoid schizophrenic, or do you just not realize what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 31, 2007 16:53:35 GMT -4
" We actually can reduce the (level) of explosives," Loizeaux said, realizing the amount of explosives had taken quite a bite. [/i] Another article describes adjustments as follows... Such materials can be used in a variety of explosive and incendiary devices and enable one to precisely adjust the produced blast parameters to defeat specific targetswww.dodsbir.net/selections/abs011/dtraabs011.htmThe CD crew "actually can reduce the (level) of explosives", as Loizeaux noted. That doesn't mean they have to go into the building and take some of the explosives out. They can remotely adjust the amount of explosives that detonate for the CD. Remember how test shots were explained?... "Test shot results don't alter the lay pattern of the explosives in the building, but rather are used to determine the proper ratio of explosive charge weight to the mass of the structural elements of the building."The ratio is adjusted, if required. Not by packing more explosives in, or taking some out. The levels of explosive charges already placed are adjusted remotely. [/quote] English comprehension again. What "adjust the level" means is to add or take away material. Nothing more, nothing less. Okay...there are some formulations that can be adulterated to change their behavior. It is not impossible that some fomulations for commercial use might have the ability to add a little of this or that to change certain qualities of the explosive. Yield would be the least likely quality to be adjusted. If the yield is too much, why are you wasting company money using too much explosive? If the yield is too little, why are you adding the risk of tinkering with your explosive in a field setting when you could have used the right amount, or a more robust formulation in the first place? In the abstract you link to, Exotherm is obviously talking about the ability to, essentially, explore the graph space between brisiance, stability, thermal output, concussion, etc. From what they have said in the abstract this appears to be a mechanical quality of the alloy; this would then be qualities that are "baked in" to the final compound on demand by the customer, not adjusted on a final packaged device. However, there is currently investigation in changing qualities of an explosive through the external application of an electromagnetic field. There are some interesting potentials in this of shaping the blast wavefront by making changes in the explosive material as the wave is progressing! They are also looking at the enhanced stability offered by munitions that are essentially inert until "activated" just prior to detonation. Dial-a-yield, another potential effect, is considered potentially useful for Air Force munitions and plans are already underway to put this capability in larger conventional bombs (it already, of course, exists in many nuclear weapons). This would actually be an in-flight capability, then, adjustable until the moment the bomb hits ground. In any case, this isn't on the shelve, or even off the lab table, yet. Nor does adjusting yields of commercial explosives by remote control seem a likely near-future development. CD is executed through a long and somewhat iterative planning cycle and adding the ability to finesse through remote control is very much too little, too late (and too little gain for the additional complexity and risk involved.) It isn't impossible to do today, with conventional materials. There are obvious difficulties (well, obvious to me, and anyone who has worked with explosives), but there are solutions that would give you a certain range of behaviors, solutions that could be imposed via remote control (since we've already had to assume we can get over the basic difficulties of remote control!) But here again your complex conspiracy shoots itself in the foot. It wires up the buildings with these jury-rigged "dial-a-yield" packages. It sets off a "test shot" that serves mostly to create witnesses that Something Was Up. Then it fires off the final blasts in such a ham-handed way (what happened to the "dial-a-yield"?) that concrete dust covers the city and the towers slip to the ground at free-fall, making obvious they were demolition targets even before the neatly-cut structural members are discovered in the debris pile (that is to say, those structural steel elements that weren't snuck out under a tarp and put on a boat to China....) (Mind, for the sarcasm-impaired, I am not describing the way the towers fell; I am copying some of the varied and inconsistent claims of the conspiracy theorists about what they thought the towers did -- the essential aspect being that no matter which flavor of the conspiracy you adhere to, the blast of explosives was too large and too obvious and completely puts the lie to it being tailored via remote control seconds before the blast.) To sum up; neither of your quoted sources say what you claim they do. Dial-a-yield is not a current quality of commercial explosives.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 1, 2007 5:16:19 GMT -4
As I've made clear I'm the author. 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. You acknowledge the bravery of Rodriguez in risking his life to save many others. And that's a positive. Then why don't you at least show a modicum of appreciation for what he did on 9/11? A fraction of respect? You only concern yourself with petty differences in his accounts. And you then accuse him of being a liar, speaking out for nothing but personal fame and fortune. You show no appreciation or respect - only disdain and scorn. I find your accusations to be falsely based and reasoned. An entirely unworthy, mean-spirited, and contemptible witch hunt. He did tone down description of David's injuries since 9/11 That's correct. that doesn't change the fact that he has contradicted himself numerous times including putting David on 2 different floors He said David was on two different floors? OMG! Come on. You know very well that Rodriguez is capable of making the same honest mistakes as the rest of us. Or are you implying he changed his account of the floor David was on for some sort of nefarious reason? and lying about having seen him after 9/11 Hold on. "Lying"? I have yet to hear Rodriguez say he didn't see David after 9/11. You posted a quote you attributed to "his presentation at the University of East London, Dockland’s Campus, February 5, 2007:
"...I didn’t know him never saw him again after 9/11." For now, let's say it's a confirmed quote from Rodriguez. . Are you seriously suggesting that he deliberately lied during his Feb.5, 2007 presentation, knowing full well he posted a photo of him visiting with David after 9/11, on his own website? And knowing his visit with David was videotaped and is online everywhere? Why would this be something Rodriguez would deliberately lie about? and not saying anything about a pre-impact explosion till 2005 after having previously filed a RICO complaint in which he said explosives in basement were detonated more than an hour AFTER the impacts You contend Rodriguez says this in the RICO document? Link... www.911forthetruth.com/pdfs/Rodriguezvs.Bush%20.pdfPlease specify where he makes this claim in the above document. I can't locate any such statement.. If you really believe Rodriguez is a liar, you really need to show solid evidence to support your accusation. Because you've shown no evidence whatsoever to date.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 1, 2007 7:41:36 GMT -4
English comprehension again. What "adjust the level" means is to add or take away material. Nothing more, nothing less . English comprehension revisited: Adjust the amount would likely mean "to add or take away material." Adjust the levels would likely mean a peripheral (ie: remote sensor / electrical / etc.) adjustment. To repost a quote... "We actually can reduce the (level) of explosives," Loizeaux said, realizing the amount of explosives had taken quite a bite. Wow! You mean they can "actually" go in and remove some explosives?!? Isn't that amazing? Sarcasm aside, why would he make this procedure sound like it's some sort of a big deal? In other words..."We actually can go inside and remove some explosives." In fact, why didn't he just say something like that to begin with, if that's what he meant? He'd also leave out how they can "actually" do this - makes it sound like too much like an extraordinary feat to simply go back in and remove some material you just added earlier. Okay...there are some formulations that can be adulterated to change their behavior. Agreed. It is not impossible that some fomulations for commercial use might have the ability to add a little of this or that to change certain qualities of the explosive. Agreed. Same with those for non-commercial (ie: military) use. Yield would be the least likely quality to be adjusted. The "least" likely? Not from the sources I've read. If the yield is too much, why are you wasting company money using too much explosive? If the yield is too little, why are you adding the risk of tinkering with your explosive in a field setting when you could have used the right amount, or a more robust formulation in the first place? Are you referring to physically adding or removing material? One source I cited earlier did test shots just five days before the CD was slated to happen. I've re-posted the relevant sections below, and bolded a few important points.... Demolition teams with Midwest Wrecking and D.H. Griffin of Texas, Inc., who contracted DDC for the explosives phase of work, overcame the lack of “drop space” by excavated massive 9 m deep receiving pits along the north and west sides of the structure and constructing scaffolding to protect the closest facades of adjacent buildings. Additionally, large steel plates were placed in roadways to protect underground utilities, container trucks and fencing were used to deflect any stray debris from impacting nearby hotels and offices, and a thin layer of wire fencing was draped over the entire structure to prevent hundreds of the building’s outer aluminium panels from “sailing” off site during the collapse sequence.
While this was occurring, blaster Steve Pettigrew and his DDC team loaded a total of 165 kg (364 pounds) of explosives on 11 blast floors, installed wood cribbing to serve as temporary interior support columns, and wired hundreds of feet of steel cables to non-loaded columns to facilitate pulling the structure into the receiving pits.So....."While this was occurring"... - excavating massive 9 m deep receiving pits - constructing scaffolding - placing large steel plates in roadways - container trucks and fencing added - draping a thin layer of wire fencing over the entire structure ...they planted the explosives. And further from the article.... "Proper direction of energy is required to efficiently implode a building," explained Steve Pettigrew of Demolition Dynamics. "We try to do it with the minimum amount of explosive material required. Five days before the scheduled implosion, we did test shots with small explosive charges to judge the reaction of the structure. Test shot results don't alter the lay pattern of the explosives in the building, but rather are used to determine the proper ratio of explosive charge weight to the mass of the structural elements of the building. When doing test shots we want to undershoot the charge just so that we can see a crack in the structure. The cracks help us to determine the planes of weakness and create a plane of relief for proper rotation at the time of implosion."So test shots are done just five days before the scheduled CD. And now, let's consider the $100,000 question.... Did they actually plant the explosives for the CD before or after the test shots? Well, we know they planted them at the same time as they excavated the massive 9m deep pits, built scaffolding, added fencing, etc. It's virtually impossible that they would schedule all this prep work, let alone know if they would even have enough time to finish it, just within the last five days before the big show. That means they had to have planted all the explosives for the CD before they did the test shots. So the towers would also have all the explosives planted before any test shots. The only issue remaining is the time difference between the test shots and the CD's - five days for the Landmark Tower, versus __ hour(s) for the WTC towers. Why did I leave the WTC time blank? Because, while the actual times were around 1 to 1.3 hours, it should be noted that the WTC demolitions were not exactly "scheduled" events with public pre-knowledge. That meant the actual "window of opportunity" before detonation was not fixed, or at least less strictly bound - ie: not within a pre-determined time limit. (Imo, a main reason for the extremely short time frame between the plane impacts and the subsequent collapses - the fires in the towers were dying, not growing. The firefighter tapes are strong evidence to indicate that they were close to being extinguished in at least one tower. And, as long as the test shots were a success, they could detonate while there were still fires burning.) They had the same reasons for doing test shots in the WTC towers as they did for the Landmark Tower. They also had more time than 1 to 1 1/5 hours after those test shots before they had to demolish them.
|
|
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 1, 2007 9:32:11 GMT -4
Incorrect, in the paper I devoted most of my attention to major differences in his accounts recently in this thread I have devoted extra attention to these smaller differences because they clearly show him giving contradictory accounts and/or saying things the obviously aren’t true
Yes but as I made clear this was no slip of tongue he said he said pointing to the ground that David was “on the B2 level below me” he said in numerous other occasions that David had been like him on B1 which is where David said he was.
As I stated in the paper I believe he wished to place David closer to the explosion he now claims to have felt below him.
Yes and I provided the link to the video, all you had to do was watch it and confirm he said this. If you’d bothered to do so you’d know why he said this, he was making the point that David’s story was the same as his even though they never had contact after 9/11.
Why would he so obviously contradict himself? I don’t know perhaps he figured no one would notice. Where exactly is this photo of him with David on his website? I couldn’t find it. He might not have known that part of his talk was being taped, it looks like a cellphone recording. It’s not uncommon for people to contadict themselves before different audiences hoping no one will notice in 2006 a Democratic political candidate in NJ (I think it was Robert Mendez) told a Jewish group he backed Liberman but told another group he was neutral in the Connecticut primary
If you followed the other link you see that he said on another occasion he didn’t know David.
Pgs. 50 - 51
Nothing is said antwhere about a pre-impact explosion
|
|
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 1, 2007 17:07:58 GMT -4
English comprehension again. What "adjust the level" means is to add or take away material. Nothing more, nothing less . English comprehension revisited: Adjust the amount would likely mean "to add or take away material." Adjust the levels would likely mean a peripheral (ie: remote sensor / electrical / etc.) adjustment. To repost a quote... "We actually can reduce the (level) of explosives," Loizeaux said, realizing the amount of explosives had taken quite a bite. Wow! You mean they can "actually" go in and remove some explosives?!? Isn't that amazing? Sarcasm aside, why would he make this procedure sound like it's some sort of a big deal? In other words..."We actually can go inside and remove some explosives." You have yet to produce evidence the explosives were installed before the tests Saying “the AMOUNT of explosives had taken quite a bite” seems to indicate the AMOUNT of explosives was adjusted You quoted 2 different articles as if they were one. Obviously they didn’t do all the prep work in 5 days but there is no indication they did all the prep work or even finished digging the “receiving pits” before the test shots or that they were planting explosives the whole time they were doing the prep. work. So lets assume it took 30 days to dig the pits, a resonable scenario is that they did everything else during the first 25 days including POSSIBLY wiring the building and drilling the holes where the charges were to be placed, then they did the test shots then during the last 5 days after determining the proper amount then they planted the explosives. According to your scenario they did all the prep. work then did the tests and then did nothing and let a structurally unsound large build full explosives stand idly by for 5 days. Common sense seems to dictate that planting the explosives would one of the last if not the last step to be taken and that would be done after they had done tests to see how the structure reacted to the explosives to be used and based on this decide how much explosive material to use. This quote from a CDI press release supports that assumption: “Following a review of the test shot results, CDI’s 8-person explosives team went to work full-speed, loading 1,227 holes on seven (7) floors of the structure to maximize fragmentation to accommodate DPC’s/Omegas’ fast-track concrete crushing and debris recycling program.”www.controlled-demolition.com/?reqMode=1&reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20040325161641These excerpts from an article already cited on this thread which indicates analysis of the test results helps determine the amount of explosives to be used also supports the assuption: “The planned mini-detonation, which triggered car alarms, was a test to see how Kingdome concrete would react to a small punch of gelatin dynamite. Information from the blast will help demolition experts calculate the fire power needed to implode the 110,000-ton stadium on March 19 or March 26. If not enough explosives are used, for example, the Dome may not collapse with ease; if too much explosives are used, parts of the Dome could hurl beyond expectation....yesterday's explosion...left demolition experts confident of one thing: Come the big day, they will have the right dose of explosives to weaken the Kingdome, and let gravity deliver the final blow.”seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/boom24.shtml The above article was released about a month before the stadium was imploded, do you think they probably planted the explosives before of after the test? Consider also this excerpt of a section of an article about steps involved in demolishing a building called “Test Shot” “Early in the design sequence, a column is found, normally in the basement, for a test shot. Based on a core sample and available information about the nature of the material in the column, locations will be marked for placement of explosives. The drill crew bore the holes to specifications, usually dead center and almost all the way through. On a job like Pacific Palisades, four holes might be drilled into the test column, each deep enough for four 8 inch sticks of dynamite.
Then, after receiving authority from the city for the shot. The holes are loaded and fired. Deep inside the building, the blast's noise and "fly rock" are fully enclosed; people nearby probably don't even hear the detonation. Then the crew reenters the structure to inspect the damage. The column should be completely shattered, although the rebar will still be intact; if the column isn't demolished, more holes and more explosives are required.”www.pacificblasting.com/implosionstory.htmlReinforcing the notion that test shots are carried out before planting explosives the next section is titled “Priming and Loading”, which describes the panting of the explosives and det cord, and the last one is “Blast Time” which describes the actual demolition including a second by second breakdown of what happens after the first explosion. Still in doubt? Then read excerpts of this article about the preparations carried before a CD: “Implosions must be planned carefully, since there is no second chance to get it right. To ensure success, the blaster does a "test shot" on several columns using varying amounts of explosives. The intent is to find the smallest amount that is enough to blow up the concrete surrounding the rebar, while minimizing flying debris.
This test shot was done on July 5, 2000, just 3 days before the actual implosion. The concrete has been successfully destroyed, while leaving the exposed rebar slightly bowed under the weight of the floor above. The amount of explosives that produced this desired result, will tell the blaster how much he has to load into the rest of the columns. Now that the blaster knows how much explosives to use, the demolition team will go through the building and load each hole with dynamite or a similar explosive charge. Each charge is then hooked up to a blasting cap and carefully wired to all the other charges...After all the explosives and wiring are in place, the final step is to wrap each column with a heavy geotextile fabric.” www.phillyblast.com/HollanderRidge/hrt-prep.htm I could cite more but what’s the point I’m sure find ways to twist logic to fit your view Citation for the last claim please. What would they have done if the tests weren’t “a success”? Actually 1 - 1 7/10 hours but hey who’s counting?
|
|
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 6, 2007 14:49:57 GMT -4
Turbonium - Is you’re lack of a reply a tact admission that you’re wrong?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 6, 2007 14:57:58 GMT -4
Turbonium - Is you’re lack of a reply a tact admission that you’re wrong? No. Just have to find enough time to reply .
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 6, 2007 15:06:24 GMT -4
- He described him as “a Black man called Felipe David, Felipe David from Honduras who I do not know”
Rodriguez doesn't say that. He says "...David....who I did not know". Listen to the video again and you'll hear it.
Other points soon to be addressed....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 6, 2007 15:41:22 GMT -4
Yes but as I made clear this was no slip of tongue he said he said pointing to the ground that David was “on the B2 level below me” he said in numerous other occasions that David had been like him on B1 which is where David said he was.
As I stated in the paper I believe he wished to place David closer to the explosion he now claims to have felt below him.
Have you even considered other possibilities?
David was earlier said to have been in front of the freight elevator on B1, while the most recent account is that he was on B2.
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?
You don't know, right? It's too much of a hassle, or irrelevant?
It's much better to just speculate on what nefarious or selfish motive Rodriguez must have had in order to fashion such an outlandish lie!
Hmm....let's see....He wanted "to place David closer to the explosion he now claims to have felt below him" That must be it!
And exactly how does this benefit Rodriguez?
You must now speculate on your previous speculation......
This is a popular method of creative writing . Who knows, it could even end up being a complete novel, some day!
|
|
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 9, 2007 8:55:13 GMT -4
- He described him as “a Black man called Felipe David, Felipe David from Honduras who I do not know” Rodriguez doesn't say that. He says "...David....who I did not know". Listen to the video again and you'll hear it. Other points soon to be addressed.... I did (listen again) and it still sounds like he said ‘do not’ to me but the sound isn’t very clear. Even if said ‘did not’ it doesn’t help you because he said he “knew” in his affidavit (see link and reference in paper) and he said in the other video that he “never saw him again after 9/11”. Yes but as I made clear this was no slip of tongue he said he said pointing to the ground that David was “on the B2 level below me” he said in numerous other occasions that David had been like him on B1 which is where David said he was.
As I stated in the paper I believe he wished to place David closer to the explosion he now claims to have felt below him.Have you even considered other possibilities? David was earlier said to have been in front of the freight elevator on B1, while the most recent account is that he was on B2. 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? You don't know, right? It's too much of a hassle, or irrelevant? It's much better to just speculate on what nefarious or selfish motive Rodriguez must have had in order to fashion such an outlandish lie! 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? I’m not sure but be made a big deal of emphasizing that David was below him on B2 after having said he had felt an explosion in the same location. He pretty obviously was linking the two. As I’ve said I can only speculate as to why he would contradict himself or make things up. Perhaps in his mind having David get burnt closer to the 'explosion' would better support the ‘basement bomb’ theory rather than the ‘fuel air explosion from jet fuel down the elevator shafts’ theory. Speaking of which, what kind of demolition charge burns people?
|
|
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 10, 2007 15:36:33 GMT -4
Oh and one more thing, are willing to admit what is painfully obvious to everyone else i.e. that your ‘explosives are put in place before tests shorts are done / there is some sort of “dial-a-yield” capability in demolition charges that allows their force to be adjusted remotely’ theory is complete nonsense?
|
|