And Farther Down the Rabbit Hole....
Phil Jayhan (who financed the first Loose Change movie) dares to think the unthinkable:
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.
Now I have been pretty critical of Willie's changing story over the years, and Mark Roberts compiled an excellent analysis of the evolution. So you might think that I'd applaud Jayhan for this piece. But he does not attack W-Rod from a standpoint of common sense; rather he does the typical paranoid nutbar routine:
8:30 Willie punches in - alleges 14 people in office with him; Did he count them all? The story gets off to a bad start with that. But lets continue.
And no kidding, the "timeline" part of the post continues like that, with Jayhan snarking all the way. But it gets much, much crazier:
It should be pointed out here that Willies story about Felipe David having 32% of his skin blown off his body from the explosion and then getting severely burned in the process, and THEN walking or taking the elevator up to the offices is a lie. He would have been unconcious and in shock. This is where Willies story simply starts falls apart. Look now for embellishments which make the super hero look even more heroic.
Of course, Jayhan apparently disagrees with Felipe David himself about the first part:
God answered Felipe David's prayer the morning of Sept. 11. The member of Transfiguration Lutheran Church, Bronx, N.Y., suffered severe burns to most of his body in the World Trade Center explosion.
When the first plane crashed, David was taking inventory of the vending machines in the center's basement. "I asked God to give me strength. And I was able to get up and run six blocks to find an exit," he says.
But it gets much, muck wackier:
2. Where are the 16 miles of staircase that you cleaned on a daily basis Willy? They are totally and completely absent from the debris pile. "Where did those 16 miles of missing staircases go to Willy? And why aren't those 16 miles of missing staircases at the world trade center part of your international crusade?
What? The staircases are all missing? Oh, but Jayhan has an explanation for that. Hold onto your hats:
9. The truth is you never once cleaned the stairwells at the world trade center and that your entire story is a fraud, and you are a total fraud Willy. There was no stairwells at the world trade center. 16 miles of missing staircase is an impossibility under every circumstance but one. That they were never there to begin with.
!!!! Now I think we can all agree on a scale of 1-10, Jayhan's nutbar-o-meter just hit 27. But... is he really any more crazy than Box Boy Richard Gage, who thinks that all the floors are missing?
Labels: Missing Staircases, Phil Jayhan, Willie Rodriguez
posted by Pat @ 12:03 PM
39 comments
39 Comments:
We all know the real loons believe in NO PLANES, but Jayhan believes in NO BUILDINGS- Yes the World Trade Center was an elaborate set piece- built by dastardly "conspirators" just for September 11th - All the people who worked there- including myself apparently (During the 80s) were in on "The Plan".
Rally- letsroll99 is one of the funniest sites on the web!
I can spend hours reading about the "Fake Windows" and "Fake victims" and "Fake Firefighters" and of course the elaborate "Smoke delivery systems".
Damnit, the troofers are closing in on our secret. It is only a matter of time before they find out that on 9/11 we, the attack baboons of the Adolph Cheney/Mc Chimpy/Neocon/Mossad cabal replaced the entire WTC complex is an EXACT REPLICA. Everybody who wne to work in the twin towers that day were detoured to waiting underground trains where they were drugged. Then they were replaced with Hollywood stunt doubles, and preselected people were offered $100 million to "die" in the attacks, then taken to Norfolk and loaded onto submarines to a Caribbien owned by Haliburton to live out their lives on private estates. The best part? Both towers were carefully sculpted out of C4.
Why did we do it? War on Islam? Control over American citzens? Nope, our leader was overcharged by his lawyer who had an office in the North tower.
And we would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling troofers...
Wow.
Just...wow.
Thanks for finally noticing Jayhan's work, Pat. I agree that he has some daft theories, but he makes some perceptive points, such as demonstrating how Willie seeks to maximize his alleged heroism (even to the extent of humanizing himself with the tale of his fear of opening the door on the 34th floor).
Thanks also for featuring the article about Mr. Felipe David in "The Lutheran" which, interestingly, does not mention Mr. Rodriguez at all.
Thanks for finally noticing Jayhan's work, Pat. I agree that he has some daft theories, but he makes some perceptive points, such as demonstrating how Willie seeks to maximize his alleged heroism (even to the extent of humanizing himself with the tale of his fear of opening the door on the 34th floor).
I agree, Brian. Jayhan is very perceptive and figured out that the WTC towers were simply fakes. Nobody worked there.
So explain to me, Brian, what happened to Mr. Kleinberg, and Mr. Van Auken, and Mr. Cassaza, and Mr. Gabrielle?
Where are they, Brian? They obviously never worked in towers that didn't exist. What happened to them?
Isn't it amazing how their "widows" rose to prominence as soon as they disappeared in the alleged "attack" on the "WTC"? I bet they got big settlements from insurance, too....
Brian, do consider someone who murders his/her spouse to be a widow/widower? A simple yes/no will do.
Brian, I can point to a YouTube video of Felipe David hugging Willie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65aflt8XlIk
So I don't have much doubt the essence of Willie's story (as originally recounted) is true. We can quibble about details, but there doesn't seem to be any denying he performed heroically on 9-11.
Maybe Willie evacuated Felipe David (and maybe not) but I'd hardly call that heroic. Then he went into a burning building. Big deal--the fire was 90 floors above, and everybody knows modern buildings don't fall from fire. Not one person will verify his claim that he climbed to the 39th floor opening doors. David Lim is named in Willie's account six times at least, and Willie is named not once in Lim's account.
By Willie's account, as soon as he learned there was any danger at all, he abandoned his quest to rescue his friends at Windows on the World and he took his allegedly-life-saving "Key of Hope" with him and went to evacuate one man on the 27th floor.
If his claim that he saved hundreds of lives by opening doors up to 39 was correct, then by turning back he was abandoning hundreds of people to die. He covers this over by claiming that floors 65 to 43 fell down so they were already dead. It's total baloney. Hundreds of people did not die on floors 65 to 43. IN fact only about 100 died at all beneath the impact zones--trapped in elevators or slow to get down the stairs.
If he took the time to help carry Ed Beyea down the stairs as he claims, that was a heroic gesture, but there is no corroboration for that claim and given that Willie lies so much there's no reason to believe it.
His federal lawsuit claimed that he single-handedly rescued fifteen persons. In all these years he hasn't showed that he single-handedly rescued anybody.
Willie steals his glory from the dead. He lies like Ian--blatantly and stupidly--and there's no reason to give him any benefit of the doubt.
This comment has been removed by the author.
When I first became aware of the discrepancies between Willie's story and reality I was inclined to go easy on him, thinking that perhaps he was suffering PTSD and had concocted the hero story in an effort to fill in the gaps of stuff he could not remember. He's been going on too long for that to be a realistic scenario.
Recently I watched the original 2002 9/11 documentaries by PBS and the History Channel, and I was shocked to see that almost every element of the stories that were told there seemed to have been woven into Willie's tale.
Maybe he started out as an honest witness and then found it necessary to start embroidering his tale to get more money to satisfy the demands of a blackmailer. That would be one way of explaining it.
Sorry Brian, but it was only after a few hours that Rodriguez told his story to CNN: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html
This story is very similar to the one that Jayhan attempts to debunk.
Brian, you didn't answer my questions about widows. Please do.
Maybe Willie evacuated Felipe David (and maybe not) but I'd hardly call that heroic. Then he went into a burning building. Big deal--
Sounds like someone is a little jealous!
Brian, why can't you just accept your life and be happy with who you are. Your quest for attention is unhealthy.
"Now I think we can all agree on a scale of 1-10, Jayhan's nutbar-o-meter just hit 27. But... is he really any more crazy than Box Boy Richard Gage, who thinks that all the floors are missing?"
Well if there aren't any floors you hardly need any stairs, now do you. Duh.
elberfeld, Willie's story as he told it on C-Span and as it appears in this transcript of his 2006 LA address is far different from what he told CNN. That's what caught our attention--that his story changed so much.
Also note in the introduction, Alex Jones lies 6 times in his first sentence! Then he tells the lie that Willie turned down offers of millions of dollars. There were no offers of millions of dollars. At one point some of his supporters claimed that the money he turned down was from the Victims Compensation Fund. He wasn't eligible for that money because he had not lost a family member.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/heroism-of-william-rodriguez-amazing.html
On CNN Willie says three times he heard a "rumble". He didn't say anything about any "exploshun" and he didn't say BOOM!
On the CNN he said nothing about saving hundreds of lives with his Key of Hope, nothing about single-handedly rescuing 15 persons.
The man is a fraud, and I've been saying so for over three years.
He can not answer the charges directly because they're true, so instead he offers the distracting and dramatic claim that he's "unmasked" the guy who's saying such terrible things about him, and then he goes to work on me with the lies that emotionally and intellectually impoverished people like Ian seem to find quite titillating.
None of the 15 people he claimed that he single-handedly rescued has ever come forward to identify themselves--except at one point fireman John Schroeder came forward with a wild and impossible story of Willie's alleged heroism that was probably designed to embarrass Willie. There's a video about that here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6OVeSq0r0A
None of the 15 people he claimed that he single-handedly rescued has ever come forward to identify themselves--
So when Willie Rodriguez makes an uncorroborated claim, the claim is false; but when any other individual makes an uncorroborated claim, that warrants a new investigation into 9/11? Please explain the inconsistency.
What uncorroborated claims are you talking about?
What uncorroborated claims are you talking about?
For example: "Personally, I try to avoid uncorroborated accounts, but until we get a full and honest investigation I'll consider [McPhadden's] claims to be something worth investigating even if I'm somewhat skeptical."
What uncorroborated claims are you talking about?
For example, Kevin McPadden's claim about hearing a countdown; Indira Singh's claim that she was told far in advance that WTC7 was coming down; and Norman Mineta's claim that a shootdown order was given for 77 prior to Bush's order. You have invoked each of these uncorroborated statements as sufficient to warrant a new investigation. Please explain the inconsistency.
Wow, all of a sudden, after years of posting the same dumbspam about 273 questions, Brian goes silent about widows. He doesn't want to talk about them anymore. I wonder why?
This comment has been removed by the author.
RGT, McPadden's claim of sounds of explosions was corroborated by Craig Bartmer, NYPD. David Chandler claims that he has found sounds of explosions in some of the news tapes released by NIST--and found mysterious gaps in some of the others--but I haven't investigated that. Indira Singh is not the only one who was told that the building was coming down or would be taken down.
Also, the necessity for a proper investigation of WTC7 hardly rests on the question of whether Ms. Singh's and Mr. McPadden's testimony is reliable or not.
Mr. Minetta's testimony is worthy of investigation because of the importance of the associated issues--the nature of any orders associated with flight 77, the question of whether there were shootdown orders before presidential authority had been given, and Cheney's timeline at the PEOC. The identities of the witnesses are known, and it would be very easy to investigate. Obviously Congress doesn't want to know.
Willie Rodriguez's testimony on whether he rescued 100s or not is of no consequence, and his lies defy simple common sense. He can not have been "opening doors and letting people out" when the panic-bar fore exit doors were not locked on the inside and the people were not locked in, and the fact that his story is uncorroborated is damning. Are we to believe that he saved hundreds and not one grateful spouse, child, or parent can be found to sing his praises?
When I started to ramp up my charges against Willy from "his story is unverified and implausible" to "he's a liar and a fraud" I wondered if I might get a call from the widows saying "leave him alone, he's one of us". Nope. 'Nuff said.
Also, the necessity for a proper investigation of WTC7 hardly rests on the question of whether Ms. Singh's and Mr. McPadden's testimony is reliable or not.
Now you're saying their statements aren't important after all?
I said what I said. The need for new investigations would be clear even if they never said what they said, because the official reports are dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable.
The need for new investigations would be clear even if they never said what they said, because the official reports are dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable.
Yup, non-falsifiable beliefs: the mark of a true religious fanatic.
Brian, once again I will remind you that nobody cares what a failed janitor and liar and lunatic like you considers "dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable."
Ian, the beliefs are certainly falsifiable if we get down to the level of specifics. For instance, I can point out NIST's dishonesty in actions such as pretending the WTC7 steel samples didn't exist, refusing to test for explosive residues, claiming the steel was "scattered" because of the need for rescue efforts, using the most severe damage estimates to reduce computation time, ignoring the reports of molten iron, and failing to address the issues of collapse symmetry and totality and speed.
You are free to attempt to shows that those distortions do not entail dishonesty if you wish.
In a democratic society it is generally considered desirable to at least play lip service to the notion that an argument ought to be evaluated on its merits instead of on the basis of lies you make up about its source.
Ian, the beliefs are certainly falsifiable if we get down to the level of specifics. For instance, I can point out NIST's dishonesty in actions such as pretending the WTC7 steel samples didn't exist, refusing to test for explosive residues, claiming the steel was "scattered" because of the need for rescue efforts, using the most severe damage estimates to reduce computation time, ignoring the reports of molten iron, and failing to address the issues of collapse symmetry and totality and speed.
Brian, I repeat, nobody cares about your lunatic delusions.
You are free to attempt to shows that those distortions do not entail dishonesty if you wish.
They're not "distortions". They're the delusions of a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who babbles on the internet calling people "girls".
In a democratic society it is generally considered desirable to at least play lip service to the notion that an argument ought to be evaluated on its merits instead of on the basis of lies you make up about its source.
Right, and your "arguments" have no merit. If you weren't an insane failed janitor, you'd understand this.
Ian, pretending the WTC7 steel samples didn't exist, using only the loudest explosive in their one explosive model, claiming the steel was "scattered" because of the need for rescue efforts, using the most severe damage estimates to reduce computation time, ignoring the reports of molten iron, and failing to address the issues of collapse symmetry and totality and speed are all distortions of an investigation that was charged with explaining the collapses--and did not.
Ian if my arguments had no merit you should be able to show that they have no merit, instead of persistently resting on the false claims that a) I am a failed janitor and b) claims asserted by a failed janitor can not have merit.
You are dizzy with circular reasoning: he's crazy because he believes the crazy things that only a crazy person would claim because they're crazy.
Your mind is like that of a child.
Ian, pretending the WTC7 steel samples didn't exist, using only the loudest explosive in their one explosive model, claiming the steel was "scattered" because of the need for rescue efforts, using the most severe damage estimates to reduce computation time, ignoring the reports of molten iron, and failing to address the issues of collapse symmetry and totality and speed are all distortions of an investigation that was charged with explaining the collapses--and did not.
See what I mean?
Ian if my arguments had no merit you should be able to show that they have no merit, instead of persistently resting on the false claims that a) I am a failed janitor and b) claims asserted by a failed janitor can not have merit.
They've been shown to have no merit countless times, and yet you continue to babble the same nonsense again. That's because you're an insane failed janitor.
You are dizzy with circular reasoning: he's crazy because he believes the crazy things that only a crazy person would claim because they're crazy.
False.
Your mind is like that of a child.
Squeal squeal squeal!
This comment has been removed by the author.
See what I mean? She squeals like a child and lies like an ape.
using only the loudest explosive in their one explosive model
You're right, they should've used some of those quiet demolitions explosives we hear so much about nowadays.
using the most severe damage estimates to reduce computation time,
Wait, so proving 9/11 theories wrong using the worst case scenarios wasn't enough for you?
ignoring the reports of molten iron,
Because they didn't find any at the scene.
See what I mean? She squeals like a child and lies like an ape.
I amused at your new way of calling people "girls", Brian.
Jonn Wood, they chose the loudest explosive they could find, and yes, there are far quieter explosives available.
The assumption of worst case scenarios is not scientific, and engenders justified suspicions that more realistic scenarios failed to yield the desired results.
Molten iron was reported by Leslie Robertson, Dr. Alison Geyh, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem and many others. A 40-pound ingot of the stuff was taken.
Jonn Wood, they chose the loudest explosive they could find, and yes, there are far quieter explosives available.
Who is "they", Brian? Also, where is the audio of these "loudest explosives they could find"?
The assumption of worst case scenarios is not scientific, and engenders justified suspicions that more realistic scenarios failed to yield the desired results.
Brian, you consider such suspicions "justified" because you are a lunatic who is very confused about 9/11. Normal people want evidence, not innuendo.
Ian, if you would bother to read the thread, you would see your questions answered. Maybe you'll have to read it three or four times, but it will be good practice for you. Let me know if you have trouble with any of the big words.
Ian, if you would bother to read the thread, you would see your questions answered.
Brian, after over 2 years of your babbling dumbspam, I've decided to just skim over your comments because they're all the same nonsensical ravings of a failed janitor.
Maybe you'll have to read it three or four times, but it will be good practice for you. Let me know if you have trouble with any of the big words.
See what I mean?
Your mind is a one-bit computer with GIGO.
Your mind is a one-bit computer with GIGO.
See what I mean?
After reading the entire thread/post (what ever, i don't hang around on forums that much that i know what the difference is) it is clear to me that Brian comes with arguments as to why he says what he says and thinks what he thinks but Ian really hasn't got that much to say, from Ian's comments i can only learn that janitors are almost certainly not qualified to have any level of rational thought and that Brian is wrong because he is a janitor and a failed janitor at that. Something that tells me a lot about Ian's look at society and the people that make up society, he surely looks down on people that do not have a high level of education and does not expect much of people with a low to average educational degree, let's say all people that left school at 16-18 yrs old are of not much intellectual value or consequence to Ian and seems to love "playing on the man" (as it is said in my country) when he has nothing substantial to add to the conversation and often repeats himself, which lessens the value of his contribution to the discussion only more, although he clearly doesn't seem to realize this.
I get the impression that Ian, what ever his biological age may be, has the mind of a 12 yr old and does not deserve the attention he seeks by repeating the same arguments time and time again.
Brian though not only has an answer to most of the issues posted but also comes with verifiable sources for his arguments which is much more than can be said of Ian's "arguments"
That the collapse of buildings 1, 2, and 7 deserve further investigation should be established beyond question by now since at least the reports on building 7's collapse were inconclusive, it was "unknown" what the mechanism was that caused the building to collapse, don't confuse mechanism with cause, stating the cause is easy (fire) but explaining hòw is another thing completely, fire should not be sufficient cause for a total core collapse, yet, the building did collapse due to said fire, wouldn't it be wise to try and find out why the building's designers could not have foreseen this would happen should the building catch fire?
This is where the people that did the final investigation fell hopelessly short and that is why some people suspect that things are not as they are portrayed to be .... Ian.
Post a Comment
<< Home