Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ali smack

9/11 theorist who changed his mind

51 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Good morning RB, it's 7 June! It's been several months now since I admitted in front of God & Everybody here at UM that I was wrong regarding the cladding at WTC. I admitted that I was wrong in claiming that they were stainless. I was in error RB, for neither the first nor the last time in my life. I'm human, just like you.

Can we move on, or would you prefer to stay mired in that issue? Shall I go to the corner with a dunce hat on? Would that make you feel better?

I have embraced the facts RB. As Wally Miller and others said and all the pictures show, there was no Boeing at Shanksville.

Let's take a closer look at what Wally Miller has said, because Wall Miller has addressed 911 Truthers who have distorted his words.

Another 14 victims of Flight 93 identified

Investigators have positively identified the remains of another 14 persons aboard United Airlines Flight 93 and Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said the investigation could conclude more quickly than expected.

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site.

"It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

Yesterday's confirmation of victims' identities by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville, Md., means that 34 of the 44 people who were aboard the jetliner crashed Sept. 11. have been identified.

http://911research.w...7_flight93.html

In other words, Wally Miller confirmed the recovery of human remains from United 93 at the crash site.

Further, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon.

But, the B-757 crash wreckage was that of American 77, and confirmed by American Airlines and the Boeing Company, both of which sent conversion formulas that pertained ONLY to the FDR of American 77, and no other aircraft.

And, my Wing commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck detailed events that occurred afterward during his going-away dinner recently, which I attended. Remember, you came along and substituted an P700 anti-ship missile, which summed it up as to where you were coming from.

There were explosive devices of some sort at WTC.

But, there are no bomb explosions in the videos and no sound of bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapse and no bomb explosions were detected on seismic monitors as the WTC buildings collapsed and no evidence of bombs was ever found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. In other words, you are in serious error to claim that explosives were used when no such evidence exist.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many many POSSIBLE explanations for motives to attack the towers and the Pentagon. Quite a rich array of possibilities, including financial gain and destruction of evidence.

That is a long way to go for the destruction of evidence. If they could orchestrate such an attack, then surely getting rid of some stacks of evidence is not much harder a task without having to destroy the towers with airplanes and explosives. Let's even extend that "they blew the building up" - then why not simply place a really powerful bomb at the first floor, like the Oklahoma bombings? Why not Place a smaller nuke in the center of the whole WTC complex?

Besides, how many people knew of any evidence at all before the attacks? Seems kind of strange since the result of the attacks were more people scrutinizing every floor of what had been WTC after they were destroyed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're still hung up on my inaccurate statement regarding SS v. aluminum?

Why did you ignore the evidence for such a long period of time when it was very clear the facade was aluminum, not stainless steel? That was typical of the way you have been ignoring other evidence as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more than 2000 architects and engineers who are on record as opposing the official explanation as put forth by NIST and other government organizations.

But, you continued to ignore the fact that the majority of demolition experts, achitects and civil engineers support the official story.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's going to help the truther cause, attacking one for "not believing."

Anyway, the biggest problem with the whole conspiracy is the lack of explanation as to why the "insiders" had to destroy the towers. I mean, as soon as the planes were hijacked - no matter the outcome - the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened in any case. Why bother with placing explosives within the buildings at all? Why risking exposing the whole conspiracy?

Exactly. And why not "find" evidence that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon to use against the US? After all, the coalition forces practically owned the country at that point. It would have been easy to have rigged "proof" that Saddam was on the nuke path.... but they didn't. So people want us to believe that the US rigged such a huge hijacking / destruction scenario as motivation / justification for invasion / increased security and then *not* follow it up with evidence to vindicate their actions?

Edited by Obviousman
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a long way to go for the destruction of evidence. If they could orchestrate such an attack, then surely getting rid of some stacks of evidence is not much harder a task without having to destroy the towers with airplanes and explosives. Let's even extend that "they blew the building up" - then why not simply place a really powerful bomb at the first floor, like the Oklahoma bombings? Why not Place a smaller nuke in the center of the whole WTC complex?

Besides, how many people knew of any evidence at all before the attacks? Seems kind of strange since the result of the attacks were more people scrutinizing every floor of what had been WTC after they were destroyed.

That is a long way to go for anything, I say. :tu:

As for your questions, we need a bar and some drinks to talk about them, simply because the answers are so complex.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't need to, Obviousman. They did not need to fabricate evidence about Iraq, because they just went ahead and did it anyway, without the bloody "evidence". Yours is a silly hypothetical, and not an analysis of the evidence at all.

There were many things accomplished by the events of 11 September, and many people who benefited, for years to come.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They didn't need to, Obviousman. They did not need to fabricate evidence about Iraq, because they just went ahead and did it anyway, without the bloody "evidence". Yours is a silly hypothetical, and not an analysis of the evidence at all.

There were many things accomplished by the events of 11 September, and many people who benefited, for years to come.

Considering the war in Iraq will cost the United States billions of dollars and VA care of thousands of veterans in the decades to come, I don't think so! Now, after just 11 years since the 911 attacks, the military is financially broke. Layoffs and cutbacks in goods and services have been a reality over the years since the 911 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yours is a silly hypothetical, and not an analysis of the evidence at all.

I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of "silly hypothesis" because what you have said is not correct. FWIW, I am looking at the evidence... all of it. What I am not doing is looking at one small piece of the events, saying "Ah! That supports my demolition theory!" then ignoring other events which contradict that theory.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of "silly hypothesis" because what you have said is not correct. FWIW, I am looking at the evidence... all of it. What I am not doing is looking at one small piece of the events, saying "Ah! That supports my demolition theory!" then ignoring other events which contradict that theory.

Are you? Looking at all the evidence? Somehow, I doubt that.

Are you looking at the testimony of Willie Rodriguez? Are you looking at the chemical analysis of the dust produced that day? Are you looking at the chemical analysis of the fumes coming off the pile for weeks? Are you looking at the lateral ejection of huge pieces of structural steel, several hundred feet outwards?

Are you looking at the analysis of the FDR? Are you looking at the statements made in the first 30 minutes or so at Shanksville? Are you looking at the ACARS data for 93? Are you looking at the design and limitations of the cell phone system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you? Looking at all the evidence? Somehow, I doubt that.

Are you looking at the testimony of Willie Rodriguez? Are you looking at the chemical analysis of the dust produced that day? Are you looking at the chemical analysis of the fumes coming off the pile for weeks? Are you looking at the lateral ejection of huge pieces of structural steel, several hundred feet outwards?

Are you looking at the analysis of the FDR? Are you looking at the statements made in the first 30 minutes or so at Shanksville? Are you looking at the ACARS data for 93? Are you looking at the design and limitations of the cell phone system?

Yes. BTW, tread carefully when taking me on in aviation. I've worked in aviation since 1985 and I'd hate for you to make a fool of yourself on the forum.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beat you by a few years Obviousman--I went to work in the business in 1971.

Do you really believe the aviation angles and implications of the story of the day? They are impossible in real life.

Possible only in simulators perhaps, and even in them they have problems with the maneuvers of the day. I'll be watching my peas and Qs, if you know what I mean. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really believe the aviation angles and implications of the story of the day? They are impossible in real life.

You are in error! Did American Airlines and United Airlines announce the loss of their aircraft during the 911 attacks? Yes! Have there been cases where large subsonic airliners exceeded the speed of sound and landed safely? Yes! It is apparent that you are not aware of the capabilities of large aircraft.

Possible only in simulators perhaps, and even in them they have problems with the maneuvers of the day.

What is impossible about that slow boring descending turn? I could have gone into the kitchen and made a sandwich and a cup of instant coffee and return to the living room before the terrorist pilot completed his turning maneuver and he didn't complete a full circle either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Are you? Looking at all the evidence? Somehow, I doubt that.

Are you looking at the testimony of Willie Rodriguez?

Let's take a closer look at William Rodreguez.

William Rodriguez - Last Man Out: Discovered a Fraud!

We have more then a few things we have discovered about Mr. William Rodriguez, alleged last man out of the world trade center on 9/11 which are extremely suspicious, but none as suspicious as when one draws a simple gracious time-line of William Rodriguez's very own tale of the events and compares it to probability verses possibility verses impossibility. . Unfortunately, no matter how one does the equation of William Rodriguez's tale of events of September the 11th, 2001, last man out, there is no available possibility that his story is true. There is literally no other possibility then that his tale of events is a staggering national hoax and at the crux of an international conspiracy.

His file is growing every day we look into this national hero of 9/11. When one lies and is caught in their lie, there is humiliation. But when one tells a lie thousands and thousands of times, and makes a fat living off of it for 10 years straight, who can describe the humiliation? William Rodriguez has told his lie, on National TV, International TV and beyond. He is by far one of the more prolific liars of the 21st century.

So don't expect William Rodriguez to ever admit to the truth. Even when nobody is listening to him any longer and he is living in a box again. And no, I seriously doubt Willie Rodriguez was ever homeless. That was all part of his "legend." The national hero ignored. National hero homeless. Then finally recognition and redemption., then finally international hero status. Legends take an awful lot of effort to create. Yet fraudulent legends sometimes fall in a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds. It doesn't take much. Just a little bit of truth shining in a dark place.

http://letsrollforum...uez-t24680.html

RICO lawsuit

In October 2004, Rodriguez sued the President of the United States and 155 other parties, accusing them of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

His 237-page civil lawsuit included allegations pursuant to the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) against The United States Of America, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld,and numerous others, totaling 156 defendants in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In his lawsuit, Rodriguez made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of "controlled demolitions;" that members of the FDNY were ordered, on instructions of the CIA, not to talk about it; that the FDNY conspired with Larry Silverstein to deliberately destroy 7WTC; that projectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from “pods” affixed to the underside of the planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US government to create “American Gulag” concentration camps which FEMA will run once the federal government’s plan to impose martial law is in place; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their family members, were not actually made but were "faked" by the government using "voice morphing" technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the US military; that the defendants had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that the defendants engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics, embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail, trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for sex. In his Complaint, Rodriquez also alleged that he "single-handedly rescued fifteen persons from the WTC".

The matter was transferred to the Southern District of New York on May 2, 2005. In January 2006, Rodriguez swore and filed a 51-page affidavit in opposition to a motion to dismiss, which reiterated and expanded upon his conspiracy allegations. On June 26, 2006, the court dismissed Rodriguez's claims against the USA, DHS, and FEMA, and gave Rodriguez until July 7, 2006 to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants. Rodriguez failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of his claims against all of the remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006

http://en.wikipedia....lliam_Rodriguez

Apparently, William Rodriguez was found to be a fraud.

Are you looking at the chemical analysis of the dust produced that day?

Dust samples were taken in an uncontrolled environment and during clean-up operations when high temperature wands and torches were used to cut steel columns at ground zero.

cut.jpg

Are you looking at the chemical analysis of the fumes coming off the pile for weeks?

Let's take a look here.

Iron Burns

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction calledoxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

Are you looking at the lateral ejection of huge pieces of structural steel, several hundred feet outwards?

All within the laws of physics.

Are you looking at the analysis of the FDR?

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

Are you looking at the statements made in the first 30 minutes or so at Shanksville?

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

http://www.washingto..._text091101.htm

Are you looking at the ACARS data for 93?

I made a call to ARINC, the ACARS experts, and from what they have indicated to me, I can safely say that 911 conspiracist are incorrect concerning their false claims on ACARS.

Are you looking at the design and limitations of the cell phone system?

Let's take a look here.

GTE Airfone recovered from flight 93 wreckage

Flight93Airphonephotocopy-custom-size-250-246-crop-0.02-0.05-0.99-0.77.jpg

UA93phonecallscopy-full.jpg

As you can see, phone call records have shown that phone calls were placed aboard the aircraft and of all of the calls made aboard the flight, only two calls were made on cell phones, and those two cell phone calls were made at 5000 feet and below, and nowhere near 30,000 feet.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. BTW, tread carefully when taking me on in aviation. I've worked in aviation since 1985 and I'd hate for you to make a fool of yourself on the forum.

Way, WAY too late, Obviousman...

Making a fool of himself (about more than just his claimed aviation expertise is disciplines relevant to the 9/11 discussion such as Crop Dusting and flying a helicopter) is the only thing that BR has been able to successfully do here.

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....but on the plus side-

at least charlie won't be getting any more emails from david icke.

every cloud & all that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you? Looking at all the evidence? Somehow, I doubt that.

Are you looking at the testimony of Willie Rodriguez?...

I'm a 9/11 neophyte and I know that his testimony has holes big enough that you could drive a truck through it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a 9/11 neophyte and I know that his testimony has holes big enough that you could drive a truck through it. :)

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was rather hoping that Likely Guy could explain/defend his statement.

More pap from Sky is....well....just more pap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was rather hoping that Likely Guy could explain/defend his statement.

More pap from Sky is....well....just more pap.

And more disingenuous attempts at sounding rational that will just end up with you handwaving away any explanation, opinion or evidence that contradicts your own fallacious, biased and willfully ignorant interpretation of events is just, well, more of the same from you.

Cz

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was rather hoping that Likely Guy could explain/defend his statement.

More pap from Sky is....well....just more pap.

Why don't you just address each of my responses to you? You've spoke of cell phones despite the fact the majority of calls were from airfones. You've been claiming "no Boeings" at Shanksville and at the Pentagon despite the recovery of B-757 wreckage at both crash sites. Why don't you post eyewitness accounts concerning United 93?

Basically speaking, people have already figured out where you are coming from.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I was rather hoping that Likely Guy could explain/defend his statement.

Well, when you do a Google search 'william rodriguez 911', Google gives you a list of related searches. One of those is 'william rodriguez lies'.

That's usually a good indicator.

Edited by Likely Guy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when you do a Google search 'william rodriguez 911', Google gives you a list of related searches. One of those is 'william rodriguez lies'.

That's usually a good indicator.

Well, that wasn't quite the detail I was looking for, but I understand why.

It's been years, but I've spent several hours listening to, reading transcripts of, and watching videos of Rodriguez giving his story to a wide variety of people, including Rotary Clubs and in front of European audiences. It's interesting to note that his testimony to the 911 Commission was similar to that of Bush & Cheney--it was held behind closed doors.

And it's interesting that the final report of the Commission makes no reference at all to Rodriguez' testimony. Ain't that funny!?!

So you may be content that because Google says this or Google says that it must be true and accurate, but I'm not.

The details of his testimony are interesting, but the essential part is that the airplane struck the building AFTER the explosion in the basement levels. That testimony is corroborated by several of his fellow workers. That fact is corroborated by the seismic research of Furlong and Ross.

More importantly, it dovetails very nicely with all the other circumstantial evidence that contradicts the statements of the Known Liars, Dubya, Dick and Donald.

You claim that Rodriguez is a liar, but say not a word about the liars in office whose story you believe. Sad comment on the complacency and gullibility of the average american. :td:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim that Rodriguez is a liar, but say not a word about the liars in office whose story you believe. Sad comment on the complacency and gullibility of the average american. :td:

William Rodrequez has been caught lying. He said he heard explosions, but let's take a look at what he has been saying.

CNN Interview

AARON BROWN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: William Rodriguez (ph) is a maintenance worker at the Trade Center, I believe. In any case, he's on the phone with us now.

Mr. Rodriguez can you hear me?

WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, MAINTENANCE WORKER, TRADE CENTER: Yes, I can hear you now.

BROWN: Tell me where you were when -- which of those two buildings were you in?

RODRIGUEZ: I work in building one. The one that got hit the first time.

BROWN: Tell me what happened.

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/

As you can see, he said that heard rumbling, not explosions. In a documentary, he changed his story.

In the documentary 9/11 Mysteries, Rodriguez describes what happened while he was in the building’s sub-basement, level B1: “All of the sudden, we heard a huge explosion. It was an explosion that came from under my feet, meaning that it came from the sub levels between B2 and B3.”

Rodriguez adds that after the basement explosion, he heard the impact of the impact that has been reported to be Flight 11 hitting the North Tower. “And there was a huge explosion at the top of the building. You could hear the difference from the bottom and all the way to the top. The one from the top, which was actually seconds after, was very far away. The one in the basement was pretty loud and you felt your actual feet moving with the floor. There was a tremor through the walls, that the walls cracked and the false ceiling totally collapsed.”

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/explosions-before-plane-impact-the-911-account-of-william-rodriguez/

Yet, he said nothing of explosions during his CNN interview with Aaron Brown. At a NIST meeting, Rodriguez told investigators that he was "the last survivor pulled from the rubble," but there were at least 18 survivors pulled from the rubble of the North Tower long after Rodriguez walked out of the building unharmed. The last survivor was Jenelle Guzman-McMillan, who was rescued some 26 hours later at approximately 12:30 p.m. on September 12, 2001.

In other words, William Rodriguez not credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.