|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 11, 2007 2:22:55 GMT -4
I have to say that I find Rodriguez's behaviour in the past few weeks very telling. He agreed to, then pulled out of an interview on Hardfire, claiming he'd been insulted by the host when the invite was posted on JREF. Since then his behaviour has deterioated on both JREF and LCF from the bad to disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 11, 2007 3:27:50 GMT -4
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, The mainstream media simply shifted its focus from 9/11- to "the hunt for Bin Laden" and war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, followed by "the hunt for Saddam" and the war in Iraq, etc. 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. Sure, there were (are) numerous 9/11 heroes. In fact, many of those who I consider most heroic on 9/11 were the hundreds of firefighters/rescue personnel who died trying to save the lives of others. But even during a day when so many people were heroes, the efforts of Rodriguez stood out. That he also managed to survive, whether he was the so-called "last person out of the tower alive" or not, made his story even more amazing. Rodriguez never "differentiated himself" - that was done by the White House, the 9/11 Commission, and the people he saved, or helped others to save, on 9/11. They singled him out for recognition as a hero. Are there so many other 9/11 survivors, whose heroics are equal to, or greater than, those of Rodriguez? Are there even one or two such people? Any that you could name? 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. Seems unlikely a full time janitor would instantly develop "media savvy", no doubt? Countless interviews and public appearances over a few years, and almost anyone would become more "media savvy", no doubt? It's good that you noted his very poor command of the English language, a few years ago. But while his overall fluency has improved since then, many flaws are still obvious - mostly in his use of grammar. Almost zero ability in speaking English at first, recalling his experiences on several occasions. Still has only mediocre skills in English. So, in spite of this, you claim this type of thing.... Someone I did not know / Someone I do not know / Someone who I knew / Someone who I never knew....is "proof" that he is lying! Sure, he can't speak fluently in English. Certainly, he fails to properly structure many of his sentences. But that's no excuse! He's obviously lying...... 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. The mainstream media did shun him, as I see it. Even his testimony to the 9/11 Commission has been sealed - why? Also I’m not the one who said he wanted to be famous, he said so himself. As a magician, you mean? Which means that everyone who aspires to become famous - as an actor, or athlete, or whatever - will lie, cheat and steal, if that's what it takes for them to become famous? The evidence that he lied is overwhelming, I don't need to go into the exact psychology of why he did it. You have no evidence he is lying. None. But claiming you have "overwhelming" evidence? Please.....
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 11, 2007 4:25:46 GMT -4
Sure, there were (are) numerous 9/11 heroes. In fact, many of those who I consider most heroic on 9/11 were the hundreds of firefighters/rescue personnel who died trying to save the lives of others. But even during a day when so many people were heroes, the efforts of Rodriguez stood out. That he also managed to survive, whether he was the so-called "last person out of the tower alive" or not, made his story even more amazing. To me, the story of Rick Rescorla is far, far more heroic. He was the head of security of Morgan Stanley in the Towers and the only one who seemed determined to keep running evacuation drills even after people started assuming that they were safe and nothing else would happen. But you won't hear his testimony. He died, because he refused to leave the building until everyone under his responsibility got out. In case you're curious, he worked out shortly after the bombing in '93, back when I was in high school, that the next attack was likely to be airplanes. He didn't consider it anything approaching impossible, and neither did any of the security experts with whom he discussed it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 11, 2007 4:41:48 GMT -4
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. Are you claiming that legal documents, such as court affidavits, are so unlikely to have any errors, even a single typo, of a single letter, within a single word, that it's virtually certain to be a deliberate lie? Even if the discrepancy is completely meaningless, and the change has no bearing on the case whatsoever? With no benefit, of any type, to be gained? I can just imagine it. You show the "evidence" of his perjury to the court. lenbrazil: "Mr. Rodriguez , in his affidavit, claims Mr. David was "someone whom I knew", on the morning of 9/11. However, he has always claimed he did not know Mr. David at that time. And I have several videos, etc. to prove it. This is clear evidence of perjury, your honor."
Judge: Is it possible that it's nothing more insidious than a simple typo in the affidavit?
lenbrazil: "It could be. But it's next to impossible, your honor."
Judge: Why is that?
lenbrazil: _____________________ (I couldn't come up with an answer that made sense)
Judge: If it was an intentional lie, can you establish a possible motive for his committing perjury?
lenbrazil: _____________________ (Again, I couldn't come up with anything)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”. So much nonsense, once again. Rodriguez reported seeing one of the "terrorists" in or near the towers just days (weeks?) before 9/11. Rodriguez recognized him after 9/11 from the FBI photos, IIRC. It's quite reasonable, based on this incident alone, for Rodriguez to have first assumed that the "terrorists" had planted explosives inside the towers before 9/11? Remember Van Romero's first comments? He thought the towers came down as a result of explosives planted by the terrorists! D'oh! Not possible without inside help, Van! Take your foot out of your mouth, pronto..... * 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. Once again, why would he think "inside job" from that? What does a janitor who could hardly string together a proper sentence in English know about Bin Laden, or government spooks, or whatever? 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? Lawyers, and their character (or lack thereof), are another issue entirely. This is about Rodriguez, and your unsubstantiated claims that he is (and has) intentionally lied.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 11, 2007 5:03:32 GMT -4
To me, the story of Rick Rescorla is far, far more heroic. He was the head of security of Morgan Stanley in the Towers and the only one who seemed determined to keep running evacuation drills even after people started assuming that they were safe and nothing else would happen. But you won't hear his testimony. He died, because he refused to leave the building until everyone under his responsibility got out. In case you're curious, he worked out shortly after the bombing in '93, back when I was in high school, that the next attack was likely to be airplanes. He didn't consider it anything approaching impossible, and neither did any of the security experts with whom he discussed it. Just read about him now. I agree, he was a true hero, on 9/11, and on many occasions before that. As I said, it seems that the majority of the bravest heroes died on 9/11, imo. Sad beyond belief. On a separate point, Rodriguez would be no more (or less) of a hero, if he had died on 9/11, compared to being the surviving hero he is.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 11, 2007 5:11:24 GMT -4
Just read about him now. I agree, he was a true hero, on 9/11, and on many occasions before that. As I said, it seems that the majority of the bravest heroes died on 9/11, imo. Sad beyond belief. It was, however, the goal of the men in those planes to kill as many Americans, regardless of how brave they were, as they could. They did a good job at that. On that--why do you find the idea of terrorists so hard to believe? I mean, leave aside physical evidence for a minute, because it isn't on your side anyway. You've repeatedly shown an obsession with the idea that the "official story," no matter what event we're discussing, cannot be true. Do you believe it's that hard to find suicide bombers? If so, explain, well, everything that's currently happening in the Middle East, really. I'm not sure I agree. It would depend on circumstances. How you live and how you die are important aspects of how heroic your life and death are. In and of itself, his living or dying doesn't mean he's more or less heroic. However, dying because you won't let anyone die while you get away is more heroic than living because you don't put others first. Then again, dying because you happen to be in the way of falling debris--or, horribly, a falling person--doesn't make you more heroic than a person who lived because they carried someone wheelchair-bound all the way out of the building.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 11, 2007 5:47:26 GMT -4
It was, however, the goal of the men in those planes to kill as many Americans, regardless of how brave they were, as they could. They did a good job at that. So goes the official story. On that--why do you find the idea of terrorists so hard to believe? I mean, leave aside physical evidence for a minute, because it isn't on your side anyway. You've repeatedly shown an obsession with the idea that the "official story," no matter what event we're discussing, cannot be true. Do you believe it's that hard to find suicide bombers? If so, explain, well, everything that's currently happening in the Middle East, really. Physical evidence is not on my side? Since your side has none, then what other side is there? Terrorists do exist. Even here. Some kill themselves. Some manipulate other people into killing "terrorists" for them. Those are the terrorists you still fail to recognize, because they don't wear turbans, or have names like Jaweed or Mahmood. I'm not sure I agree. It would depend on circumstances. How you live and how you die are important aspects of how heroic your life and death are. In and of itself, his living or dying doesn't mean he's more or less heroic. However, dying because you won't let anyone die while you get away is more heroic than living because you don't put others first. Then again, dying because you happen to be in the way of falling debris--or, horribly, a falling person--doesn't make you more heroic than a person who lived because they carried someone wheelchair-bound all the way out of the building. Saving all those people, despite the real likelihood of being killed yourself at any time? That makes Rodriguez a genuine hero.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 11, 2007 7:01:02 GMT -4
Of course, lenbrazil has a quite....um... different...system for evaluating one's character.
Risking one's own life to save the lives of others, while it's a decent thing to do and all that, is quite insignificant when compared to many of one's other character traits....
For example, if that same person should appear to be lying. Maybe he "embellishes" his story. Lying, or even suspicion of lying, greatly outweighs any of one's previous acts of heroism, such as saving the lives of others.
The reason for lying isn't really important. Maybe it's pathological. Maybe it's a desire for fame and fortune. Or maybe it's both. Who knows? It doesn't matter, anyway. A liar is a liar.....
The lie can be a whopper, or as small as a dust speck. Your choice, all lies have the same point value. Rodriguez first said he didn't know David. Then, later on, he said he did know him! One of the claims must be a lie! Which one? Don't know, don't care.
Quite the value system, I'd say....
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 11, 2007 13:23:25 GMT -4
Present one piece of physical evidence that favours your side more than ours, and remember that it must be acknowledged as such by those who know what they're talking about, not just you and certainly not just Stephen Jones. Note that your lump of "slag" is clearly not, because the rebar in it would have melted. Note that the "pools of molten metal" have never been confirmed, and were never tested to be steel in any event and could therefore just as easily have been something with a lower melting point.
Further, I resent the implication of racism on my part. I am most assuredly aware that there are terrorists who are not Middle Eastern. I can name more than a few, starting with quite a few people in Northern Ireland and continuing through people who operated in the US. I am not such a fool as Homeland Security, thank you.
You have no physical evidence. You have implications and suppositions and innuendo (oh, my). You have denial a-plenty. However, the fact that you don't believe the (tons and tons) of physical evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. It means that you are ignorant, willfully or otherwise (I suspect the former) of it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 12, 2007 1:13:47 GMT -4
I'm more than happy to address your points elsewhere, gillianren. But I'd like to try and stay on the main topic here, though.
|
|
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 16, 2007 15:20:07 GMT -4
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, The mainstream media simply shifted its focus from 9/11- to "the hunt for Bin Laden" and war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, followed by "the hunt for Saddam" and the war in Iraq, etc. Exactly attention paid him and other 9/11 heroes faded with the next news cycle. 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. Sure, there were (are) numerous 9/11 heroes. In fact, many of those who I consider most heroic on 9/11 were the hundreds of firefighters/rescue personnel who died trying to save the lives of others. But even during a day when so many people were heroes, the efforts of Rodriguez stood out. That he also managed to survive, whether he was the so-called "last person out of the tower alive" or not, made his story even more amazing. Rodriguez never "differentiated himself" - that was done by the White House, the 9/11 Commission, and the people he saved, or helped others to save, on 9/11. They singled him out for recognition as a hero. Are there so many other 9/11 survivors, whose heroics are equal to, or greater than, those of Rodriguez? Are there even one or two such people? Any that you could name? My whole point is that these people faded back into anonymity shortly after 9/11, it is unreasonable to expect me to find or remember them over 5 years later. However most of the surviving fire fighters and cops who had entered the buildings would fit the bill. How about the ones who were in the North Tower stairwell when it collapsed and really were the last people out of the Twin Towers? But of course they were doing their jobs. But as you often point out no one expected the towers to collapse, 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**. * The impact zone of the North Tower was between the 93rd and 98th floors, Rodriguez only went up to the 39th floor. ** www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/ctv_lopes_survivors.html IIRC several people entered the Pentagon after flight 77 crashed into it. A quick search turned up others whose heroics were similar to Rodriguez’s Jason L. Thomas and Bruce Reynolds not to mention John McLaughlin and William Jimeno, www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/worldtradecenter818 Henry Li usinfo.state.gov/albums/911/henry1.htm When did the 9/11 Commission single him out? What examples can you cite of the people he saved having said anything about him other that in Spanish language and “truther” media? Was he the only person so honored by the White House? 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. Seems unlikely a full time janitor would instantly develop "media savvy", no doubt? Countless interviews and public appearances over a few years, and almost anyone would become more "media savvy", no doubt? What’s your point? You seem to be backing mine i.e. his lack of “savvy” reduced his marketability as a 9/11 hero, he didn’t figure out how to be a self promoter till his original ‘time in the sun’ had long since past. By then his easiest route was the (bend the) “truth” movement. It's good that you noted his very poor command of the English language, a few years ago. But while his overall fluency has improved since then, many flaws are still obvious - mostly in his use of grammar. Almost zero ability in speaking English at first, recalling his experiences on several occasions. Still has only mediocre skills in English. So, in spite of this, you claim this type of thing.... Someone I did not know / Someone I do not know / Someone who I knew / Someone who I never knew. ...is "proof" that he is lying! Sure, he can't speak fluently in English. Certainly, he fails to properly structure many of his sentences. But that's no excuse! He's obviously lying...... To say his speaking ability on 9/11 was “almost zero” is a gross exaggeration; I didn’t notice any obvious errors during his Aaron Brown interview that day. 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”. 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. 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. The mainstream media did shun him, as I see it. Even his testimony to the 9/11 Commission has been sealed - why? The media stopped paying attention to him shortly after 9/11, other than accounts of his 9/11 Commission testimony, Spanish TV reports and articles in local papers he hardly got any coverage mid 2002 – Oct 2004 (when he filed his lawsuit). If you theory were correct you should be able to show a steady amount of coverage until around October 2004 and then it suddenly stopping. It is my understanding witnesses whose testimony was not considered especially relevant was not published, and that this includes a good number of witnesses. Who besides Rodriguez says its sealed? Have you or anybody you know filed a FOIA request to get the transcript? His testimony seems not to have been taken in secret, it was reported in the press and the makers of a documentary about him claim to have clips of it. Have you tried contacting the filmmakers? Also I’m not the one who said he wanted to be famous, he said so himself. As a magician, you mean? Which means that everyone who aspires to become famous - as an actor, or athlete, or whatever - will lie, cheat and steal, if that's what it takes for them to become famous? Logical fallacy (inductive fallacy, if I’m not mistaken), one doesn’t follow from the other. Let’s make an analogy to a murder case: DA Len Brazil – “The evidence clearly shows that Mr. Rodriguez killed his wife, we believe he did this because he thought she was cheating on him” (Defense attorney) Turbo Nium – “So the DA believes that every man who believes his wife is cheating on him will murder his wife!?!? DA L.B. – “No, we believe that some men in that situation will resort to murder and that Mr. Rodriguez is one of them” The evidence that he lied is overwhelming, I don't need to go into the exact psychology of why he did it. You have no evidence he is lying. None. But claiming you have "overwhelming" evidence? Please..... I doubt anybody but you on this board would agree with your statement above. 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. Are you claiming that legal documents, such as court affidavits, are so unlikely to have any errors, even a single typo, of a single letter, within a single word, that it's virtually certain to be a deliberate lie? Even if the discrepancy is completely meaningless, and the change has no bearing on the case whatsoever? With no benefit, of any type, to be gained? 1) I believe it is very unlikely to be a typo because a) people are far less likely to make them in legal documents than in less important documents b) the ‘e’ key isn’t close to the ‘o’ keyboard. 2) People who sign depositions normally read them beforehand so you would have to believe that the stenographer or typist made a ‘typo’ and Rodriguez didn’t catch it. 3) His credibility comes into play; the fact that he lied and or radically changed his story on several other occasions increases the likelihood that he was lying about having know David. 4) Pathological liars lie for reasons that make little sense to others. 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”. So much nonsense, once again. Rodriguez reported seeing one of the "terrorists" in or near the towers just days (weeks?) before 9/11. Rodriguez recognized him after 9/11 from the FBI photos, IIRC. It's quite reasonable, based on this incident alone, for Rodriguez to have first assumed that the "terrorists" had planted explosives inside the towers before 9/11? Remember Van Romero's first comments? He thought the towers came down as a result of explosives planted by the terrorists! D'oh! Not possible without inside help, Van! Take your foot out of your mouth, pronto..... Poor analogy, Van Romero made his comments with in hours of the attacks, believed the explosive had been planted in the more accessible upper floors and we have no evidence he ever visited the towers. Rodriguez on the other hand had worked in the towers for nearly 20 years, claimed years after the fact he thought the explosives had been planted in the more restricted subbasement and even months after the attacks after hearing nothing about explosive having been planted still thought it was OBL, even though the “official story” since hours after the attacks was that the impacts and resulting fires brought the towers down. * 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. Once again, why would he think "inside job" from that? What does a janitor who could hardly string together a proper sentence in English know about Bin Laden, or government spooks, or whatever? Just because someone doesn’t speak English well doesn’t mean that they are stupid or ignorant, and you are once again exaggerating his problems with English. Ditto what I wrote above, months later he hadn’t heard anything about explosives being used. If he really thought the floor was “sealed” how did he imagine OBL’s men who months earlier didn’t know where the bathrooms were got in? You never answered the question about how someone who had worked for the Port Authority in the North Tower for 20 years and had an office on the 33rd floor could not have known that the Port Authority had offices on one part of the 34th floor and that the other was under construction? 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? Lawyers, and their character (or lack thereof), are another issue entirely. This is about Rodriguez, and your unsubstantiated claims that he is (and has) intentionally lied. My point had nothing to do with Berg’s “character (or lack thereof)” but rather, why he wouldn’t have mentioned something his client told him which if true would prove his case. The most likely explanation; Rodriguez didn’t tell Berg this, just like he didn’t tell Skyzmanski (sp?) about it in his October 2004 interview or tell anybody about the “pre-impact explosion” till May 25, 2005 nearly 4 years after 9/11. Not only is his claim to have felt the explosion a lie but claim that he had been trying to tell people about it for years was another.
|
|
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 17, 2007 8:21:48 GMT -4
Of course, lenbrazil has a quite....um... different...system for evaluating one's character. Risking one's own life to save the lives of others, while it's a decent thing to do and all that, is quite insignificant when compared to many of one's other character traits.... For example, if that same person should appear to be lying. Maybe he "embellishes" his story. Lying, or even suspicion of lying, greatly outweighs any of one's previous acts of heroism, such as saving the lives of others. 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. You seem rather detached from reality. Yes "a liar is a liar" and a liar isn't a credible witness . I never said that either, his most aggregious lies were 1) his post May 2005 accounts of the "pre-impact explosion" 2) his claim that he had been trying to tell the media about this for years
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 20, 2007 4:35:11 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?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 20, 2007 4:42:18 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?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 20, 2007 5:09:38 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.
|
|