William Rodriguez Hits the Mainstream

Email from Kevin Barrett of Mujca.

William Rodriguez's real story - the story of the explosions he witnessed that day - was never reported in the US mainstream media...until now.

Thanks to the dozens of people who kicked in with time, energy and money to bring William Rodriguez on his first Midwest speaking tour, William is now on the record, in the US mainstream media, describing the explosions he witnessed while performing heroic rescue work on September 11th, 2001.


"They always left the part about explosions out," Rodriguez says of previous mainstream US media coverage of his story. At first he thought this was because they had to convey the story in just a few minutes or paragraphs. But when the 9/11 Commission made Rodriguez testify in secret and then sealed that testimony, while refusing to hear more than a dozen corroborating witnesses, he realized that the government and mainstream media were hell-bent on covering up the truth. (For a summary of some of the massive eyewitness testimony about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, see Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories, By Dr. David Ray Griffin.)

Since then, Rodriguez has been on a mission of truth on behalf of the family members and other victims of 9/11. "Do not let anyone tell you that the victims do not have the right to ask questions and find out how and why their loved ones died," Rodriguez says. It is long past time for mainstream journalists (if that _expression is not an oxymoron) to take Rodriguez at his word and start asking the hard questions about 9/11.

For more information on William Rodriguez, see http://911keymaster.com

Show "I respect his rescue efforts, but I question his quotes." by ref

Ref, you quote, "The

Ref, you quote, "The original quote from him was 'We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.'"

So, the jet fuel, i.e., kerosine, did that.

This kerosine theory sure looks bizarre. How can kerosine act like that? Can we set up a model in which it will perform like that?

How far did it have to travel, laterally, to get to the elevator? Then, after that, how did so much of it get into the elevator shaft? Rivers of it. And does kerosine do that at all, i.e., lead to a thermobaric explosion, somehow, which blasts a building apart? It sounds quite fantastic to me.

If so much of it got down the shaft to explode like that, IN THE BASEMENT, what melted the steel IN THE UPPER FLOORS FAR ABOVE so as to make it buckle (photos are available at GZ, of grossly buckled and HUGE steel trusses). NIST claims that the kerosine fires weakened the steel up in the floors where the jets hit.

The kerosine is doing two different jobs in two very different locations, in this explanation.

But in fact, how can kerosine melt steel at all? Under any scenario, how would that happen? But especially, if rivers of it already somehow found their way down an elevator shaft...
How can it do either, and how can it do BOTH?


You have given me lots of time for additions to this original post with questions.

New question: Massive steel beams were ejected almost 400 feet so as to crash through the roof of WTC 7. Again, it was a jet fuel explosion that did that? A jet fuel explosion, high up in the WTC 1 tower.

If so, then the jet fuel is doing three BIG and very different things.

But does jet fuel ever explode like that, so as to eject hundred ton pieces of metal quite far into the distance?

Come to think of it, the metal it hurled so far a distance was RED HOT. Many tons of metal, red hot. That's how, they say, the fires got started in WTC 7, due to the red hot metal falling into it.

Can jet fuel ever render so many tons of metal into red-hot blobs like that, before hurling it outwards in an explosion? I never saw a kerosine stove hurl parts of itself outward after melting it.

My guess is, Underwriter's Laboratories would not certify any stove that did that. Bad design. Dangerous. It might hurt someone.

And! Jet engines themselves are made of sheet steel, and steel parts, along with titanium of course, in critical areas. Why don't the steel parts melt? Since, as we all know, jet fuel melts steel. The WTC tower events prove that.

Anyway, that is now four entirely different things the same batch of jet fuel is doing. None of them very believable in the first place.

Maybe someone added thermite to the jet fuel, for some reason.

Show "reply" by ref

Still grasping

'Kerosene only started the fires. It burned out in minutes, but the fires themselves continued to burn.'

Not very hot and not for very long, a mere 56 minutes in the case of the South Tower, and neither tower came close to burning anywhere near as long as other documented skyscraper fires (Philadelphia, Caracas and Madrid are a few well-known examples)--fires which gutted whole floors, but did no significant damage to the buildings' core columns, which remained standing after the fires had subsided only after raging for many, many hours. That the fires at the towers were dying down after the jet fuel burned off indicated they were having difficulty casuing the most basic materials inside the building to ignite--they weren't even hot enough to cause window panes to break. Meanwhile, you've got all this visual and aural evidence of explosions leading up to the collapses.

But I don't want to pester you with trivial details.

It's apparently amateur hour on the troll front.

Show "Know the basics" by ref

What caused the explosions then?

Together in Truth!

Those Pesky Explosions...

....before the plane hit:


“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

First Madrid was a towering

First Madrid was a towering inferno.

Second of all the steel took HOURS to collapse, not less than 15 seconds. The steel Literally was on the verge of melting.

Third of all, the point of the official theory is to explain the initiation of the collapse, but always forget the progression, why would the collapsing steel in Madrid not lead to a total progressive collapse?

Remember the 2/3 of the building under the impact is quite tough, and totally unaffected by the fires, not to mention, that it probably is even much tougher than the lower section of the Madrid tower.



Help me on 9/11 debates on:


Show "Let me point you something" by ref


As far as I can tell, ref doesn't want to speak to the points that I raised above. I guess that is a good sign? Not for his arguments, though.

Or maybe he is a she. I will assume he is a he.

He says: "But you need to understand kerosene was only the igniter, not the one that burned everything." And how does that answer what I was asking?

He then says, "As for this OP topic, Mr. Rodriguez has replied to this similar thread elsewhere..." I do not get the logic of this sentence. OP topic? Mr. Rodriguez? At best this looks like a confusing (and confused) dodge, to me.

Are you reading this, ref? Do you see what I mean?

But now, speaking to others here, especially to anyone who may need to debate these matters...

Do please check up on what I am asking up there. My background is more in the biological sciences, and in statistics. Also in teaching. So check the science, please, before using this same line of reasoning. I do suppose the science will check out well.

My logic says that the OT relies heavily on the jet fuel, for several huge and really fantastic tasks.

If and when any of us debates these matters, though, we will need to check every detail, even in our questions such as those that I have raised above... the questions which ref seems to have dodged.

Show "Friends 2" by ref


Thanks for the reply. I can't evaluate all of your statements, and hope that people with appropriate background can and will.

[ [ EDIT: I notice that JJJames does a nice job below this post of mine. It will take a while to comment on all that we have here. Please dig in. Now back to my original (rather long) post. ] ]

The "kerosene explosions... in narrow spaces" point is quite interesting. It does appear though that this anomaly would depend quite heavily on location -- where the jet airplane entered the building.

If there is evidence of similar explosions in WTC 2, this kerosine fireball explanation for it would lose its plausibility in that case, given how the second plane impacted that tower (that is, crashing into the corner of the building, with some parts of it even exiting out the other side of that corner, to be retreived later at street level).

Videos of that second tower impact even seem to show a cloud of, presumably, jet fuel, spraying out into the air and burning, after the initial impact. That too will change what we can expect the kerosine to do in the building. That building collapsed before WTC 1 did, if I remember correctly.

In fact, videos of that second jet impact clearly show an explosion on impact into the building. Presumably that would be the kerosine in the plane exploding.

Also, I do still wonder about the molten metal. Your explanation doesn't seem to get into that. Welders need -- what is it? -- acetylene gas and oxygen, too, I think, both under pressure, in order to get metal heated to melting in spot locations only. But here we have massive -- hundred ton sections? something like that -- massive steel beams, red hot. They buckle and bend, and red hot pieces of metal jump out somehow so as to crash into other buildings such as WTC 7.

I agree that your "extreme forces and masses of the collapse" reasoning looks plausible, for kicking out large pieces laterally. I hope others will do the calculations to see it that explanation works.

In fact, I seem to remember at least one energy calculation on that topic, in j911 Studies. I believe it showed that too much happened -- what with the fine particalization of everything that took place, and so much more -- for the available energy.

But how did the metal, and so very much of it, get so hot, as it was klcked out by gravitational pressure? And how did everything get so pulverized? What pulverized it? The particles measured in the microns range.

Back to the heat: each of the three buildings had molten metal underneath for weeks after the event, according to considerable eyewitness testimony. I believe there is video evidence of beams dripping with molten metal, hoisted up for removal during the cleanup efforts. If not, then there certainly is eye-witness testimony of that. Satellite thermal imaging shows hot spots at each of the footprints of the three downed towers, for weeks after the event. There is again considerable eye-witness testimony to that as well.

Explanation? Kerosine fires? Office fires? Do rugs burn that hotly, for weeks later? Desks? Concrete?

But you have now also opened the door for more questions, apparently in general. Here is one, leading to a whole series: Have you seen video footage of WTC7 collapsing? And have you also seen photos of the damage, and fires, that it sustained, prior to collapse?

Does the collapse of WTC 7 look symmetrical to you, in the video footage? Do you have any comments about the symmetrical nature of WTC 7's collapse, given where the damage was located? How would ALL structural columns fail simultaneously, do you suppose? And what is your opinion about the speed at which that building collapsed?

(For 'speed' I might rather say, the elapsed time of collapse, or how long it took the building to fall down. For simplicity, I will use the word 'speed' here for that.)

I also gather that speed of collapse is important in this discussion, concerning both WTC 1 and WTC 2. The photographic record enables us (including NIST) to estimate the speed of collapse in all three cases.

Do you have any comments about the speed of collapse for those two buildings, and for WTC 7?

BTW, your English looks about as good as mine, to me...

Show "This is great." by ref

I'm sorry that you had to go over this again for us

as we are the weak minded and can not coherently display cognitive thought.

You are correct. An explosion will create a fireball which will seek the path of least resistance. You believe that the fire created by the explosion of the impact of the plane traveled downward through the hermetically sealed elevator shafts approximately 8 to 10 times the distance as it spread outward from the point of impact on the structure?

A fireball traveled 1000 feet down when the heat of the fire rising would also impeed the progress of the explosive fireball. Each time it exploded at it descended consuming its explosive fuel.

Was the fuel pouring own the elevator shafts? Possibly. Unfortunately these buildings were divided into three seperate sections. There were lobbies where if you were traveling to the upper levels you would be required to transfer from one elevator to another. There were sperations created in the elevator shafts at these locations. The fuel would have had a very difficult journey to the basement. If it was not impeeded by the seperation at the Sky Lobbies then it would have met interference wherever it encountered an elevator. If you research the reported locations of the explosions you will find a very mathmatical and calculated interval. 66....44.....22....lobby. Then again at the lowest level which caused a massive explosion which shook the structure?

William somehow heard and felt this explosion from below prior to the explosion above. 6 other people also corroborate his story and were also not included in the 911 Commission Report? Two men which William personally saved from drowning in one of the elevators told him that they escaped the fireball from below by running into the freight elevator. You do not hide from an explosion and the resulting fire by moving toward its point of orientation. The elevators.

500 degree temperatures can weaken steel and this can be tested. Can it affect steel which was between 1 inch and two inches thick? Structural steel which was built in the form of a box column? One of the genius engineering masteries of this structure is that every one of these columns is a heat sink. The steel draws the heat away from the point of heat towards the less affected areas. The thickness of the steel also aids in this process. In order for the heat to affect this type of structural member the columns would have to be equally affected from all sides, including the center of those columns which was completely sheilded and protected from direct heat of the fires.

These coulmns would have all had to have been equally affected by the heat of the fires for it to suffer complete and catastrophic simultanious and symmetrical structural failure. 236 exterior columns. 47 18"X36" structural steel columns which were nearly 2 inches thick on FOUR sides.

In order for this falling upper section of building to gain the speed to aquire the needed energy to come anywhere near the energy required to do what it did each and every structural member would have had to completely lose all structural integrity at the very same time to allow the upper structure to free fall.

50% weakness would not cause a complete failure. The building would have slumped as the steel structure gradually weakened instead of the instantanious vertical fall through itself. The path of most resistance.

The building could not under any natural circumstances fall through the path of most resistance and still reach the ground anywhere near free fall speed.

The upper section would also have to maintain its integrity. Watch the video. The upper building is also crumbling which would greatly compromise the kinetic energy of that falling debris.

NIST put the steel trusses through extensive testing. Fire which burned more efficiently and much longer and they could not get the trusses to buckle or fail like they said that they did. Their tests yeilded a sag of 3 inches yet the reported the trusses in the Towers would have sagged 42 inches??? They are allowing themselves some vast scientific freedom in their conclusions.

These trusses were supported by steel clips which were attached to the structures columns and cross bracing. Thes clips were designed to hold those trusses up. This is a vertical force. These clips were subject to the same heat as the structural steel box columns if not more being that heat rises and the clips were located at the ceilings where the heat would most likely move. As the trusses sagged it would create a vertical force on the clips which they were not designed to handle. Would those clips not fail long before those large structural box columns?
Together in Truth!

Show "Response" by ref


William saved two men from the freight elevators. They wouls have been severely burned if not dead if a huge explosions which devistated the lobby had just occured anywhere in their vicinity. These two men were drowning because of the water from the elevator shafts pouring into the elevator shaft. The shafts were so well sealed that the water had nowhere to go and was eventually going to consume them.

You are right about the falling debris. The mass would not just disappear. Unfortunately as the mass dissentigrated it would lose it's overall integrity greatly compromising its destructive force. This should have allowed the intact structure to resist a complete and total destruction straight to the base. The structure in normal circumstances would resist the collapse and the falling debris would be slowed dramatically causeing the falling debris to move towards the path of least resistance. Causing the debris to fall off to the side leaving much of the structure intact. Leaving many survivors.

If it collapsed straight down by some natural force then it should have taken much longer and there is a very high probability that the core structure would have been intact. Protecting those trying to escape in the stairwells and elevators.

You also believe that somehow these two structures ,which had completely unique structural damage. Absolutely unique impact zones. Completely different fire spread, heat dispersement and fire damage. BOTH managed to collapse in exacly the same way. Falling in exactly the same time. BOTH exhibiting all the characteristics of a explosive driven controlled demolition except that the implosion was not initiated from the bottom to the top.

As far as your stick theory goes. Sure. If yopu removed the structural members one by one then the weight of the above structure would crush the below to some point. BUT in order for that to happen as it did in a symmetrical matter those structural memebers would have to be removed in a symmetrical matter. If one side of the building. Just 1/4 had remained intact then the resistance of those members would cause the above structure or mass to fall off to the side. To tip dramatically. But to fall directly through itself not once but TWICE in exacly the same manner considering the uniqueness of the damage of both buildings???

Come on!

What you are talking about is uncalcuable probability. You are allowing you science the utmost freedom and ignoring it's associated sense. Believe what you want to believe but your logic is flawed, my friend.

Three steel structures collapse for the first time in history at near free fall speeds into their own footprint traveling through the path of most resistance due to fire and gravity driven failure. Never again. Never before. EVER!

Two of which could be argued as the most structurally sound structures to ever be engineered and built.

The third which was not hit by a plane was built to be a bunker and house the emergency services on New York in case of a disaster. Built so entire floors could be removed and not affect its structural integrity.

But I guess that all the stars were aligned on 9/11?
Together in Truth!

Show "Not too hasty" by ref

You're still here?

Sorry, I can't read your posts, they're hidden. But perhaps you could answer one, wee question of mine:

Where in the NIST report does it explain the mechanism for systemic, simulateous, structural failure of WTC 1 and 2 that caused them to collapse just a little over free fall speed?

ONLY the NIST report, please. With page numbers, and links to the NIST report, if applicable.

Take your time...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "Yes" by ref

Sorry to confuse--though you need little help;-)

When I said "over free fall speed" I meant it took a little LONGER than it would take for free fall, NOT that it was faster than freeall

Does that help?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Obviously not. ;-/

Where did you run off to, ref?

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

ref, ref, wherefore art thou "ref"?

Still not answer? Even after my clairification? You'll make Jenny sad. I might also follow you around the site until you DO answer.

It's kinda like a "howler"--the longer you wait, the worse it will be. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Re: This is great

Thanks again, ref, for the detailed reply.

If the symmetrical failure of WTC 7 is as easy to explain as you seem to say, I wonder why NIST has yet to publish any opinion about it? I believe they had promised to do so, and that the report was due out -- at present I can't find the date it was supposed to have come out; I suspect it may be rather late at this point.

In any case, the event in question occurred in 2001. That seems rather long ago, doesn't it, for filing a simple report of an easy-to-explain failure? It does to me. Why would they wait so long?

As you know, all mention of WTC 7 is simply ommitted from the 911 Commissions Report, for some reason.

Now, I am not holding you responsible for NIST's tardiness, or for 911 Commission omissions. But do you not find it odd, if the collapse is as easy to explain as you state here? Why would both organizations, with all the expertise at their disposal, fail -- at least so far -- in this simple task of explaining the collapse?

Now I will paste in some comments from an earlier thread here, namely this one, in a comment by Jesse Goplen. Please feel free to read it, and comment too if you like, on what is there, since it provides other odd details, that you too may find hard to explain, about this collapse of WTC 7.

Here is the copied material:
In the US, FEMA produced an interim report in May 2002 explaining that WTC was a completely custom building. The Pentagon, the CIA and the US Secret Service had rented portions of the building. In the basement were large diesel generators to supply the building with energy during emergencies. It was “presently still unknown,” according to the conclusion of FEMA, “how the fire could have caused the collapse of the building.” The New York Times commented that WTC 7 was the “great secret” of the attacks, because until that day in the US a building made of steel and concrete had never collapsed due to fire.

“We simply don't know what exactly happened in WTC 7,” said Mario Fontana, sitting Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction at ETH-Zurich. At conferences of structural analysis experts one has discovered only very little on the collapse of WTC 7. It is at least thinkable that a long, on-going fire could have caused the collapse of the building, according to Fontana.

FEMA forwarded the WTC 7 file to the government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) . Whereupon unsettled Americans and journalists called and wanted to know from NIST why WTC 7 collapsed. “I don't understand this fascination people have with WTC 7,” retorted NIST speaker Michael Newman in March 2006.

“In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.”

The owner of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, reminisced on US television one year after the attacks in September 2002 about the collapse of WTC 7. The fire department informed him that there was a fire in the building. After that Silverstein recounted his own statements: “Perhaps it's best if we pull it.” “And so they decided to pull it, and we watched as the building came down.” Later Silverstein defended himself, by “pull it” he meant “evacuate the firefighters.” 9/11 critics like US millionaire Jimmy Walter point out that this makes no sense, “it” would have to refer to a thing.

Steel Beams in Asia

To find out whether fire or demolition led to the collapse of WTC 7, one would have had to examine the steel beams. But they're gone. “Over 80% of the WTC steel has already been sold, most, if not all, before the scientists and criminologists could examine it,” protested Anthony Weiner, US Representative from New York, in March 2002 in the US Congress. The steel was recycled in Asia. Professor Frederick Mowrer of the University of Maryland's Fire Protection Engineering Department, who, together with other experts, had to investigate the collapse of the WTC buildings, criticized this action sharply: “I find the speed with which important evidence was taken away and recycled alarming.”

Show "Quick reply" by ref

Re: Quick reply

Thanks again, ref, for reading what I sent in. I will be interested in your reply to these more recent questions from me, when you have more time to devote to the task of answering.

In the meantime, I will make a prediction. I predict that NIST will never issue a report on how and why WTC 7 collapsed as it did.

The odd thing there is, some people at the time seemed sure it was going to collapse. Someone had announced that it would. We have multiple eyewitness testimony to that effect.

Two different BBC news stations even announced definitively that WTC 7 had collapsed, some 26 minutes before it actually did. In one case the announcer, Laura Standley by name, I think, says "This just came in. We have news that the Solomon Building has just collapsed." But viewers who know the New York skyline can see that very building right behind her, as she makes the announcement.

WTC 7 looks fine, in that view. No problems are evident from that vantage point, right before its collapse. Not much smoke is evident. You'd expect more smoke if the fire were so bad as to -- somehow -- cause the building to collapse like that. Even though fire has never done that before, we are told. No steel-framed building has ever collapsed like that, due to fire alone, we are told.

In fact, you'd expect to see at least some evidence of flames, even if it is the other side, the far side, that is on fire. The roof also looks fine, in that video clip. Supposedly there was major damage, but none of that is evident in that frontal view, right before the collapse.

We have the video clip here if you'd like a link to it. One of our regular members here, 911veritas, is responsible for discovering that footage and getting it widely distributed.

The BBC's official reaction to the finding was rather confused. Eventually they called it "a simple cock-up," which means a mistake. Then they claimed that they had lost the original footage, and actually asked the public to supply it to them. Strange, to lose footage from such an important day in the world's history. Apparently their archiving method involves a three-fold redundancy. Thus, losing the footage becomes that much more remarkable.

Again, I do not expect you to explain how the BBC could have done this odd thing, or odd series of things. I only wanted to point out the oddity of it. I agree, too, that it was probably just a mistake of some sort. One more mistake among so very many on that day and thereafter.

Since then the BBC, and all other news outlets, have ignored the whole 'BBC WTC 7 foreknowledge' issue, no doubt hoping that people will simply forget about it. And, mostly, they bave.

News outlets in this country never reported on it. Amazing. The near-total blackout on 911 news developments astounds me. It reminds me of Soviet Russia.

A CNN news anchor also made that same definitive announcement about WTC 7's demise, also prior to its collapse, though the fellow amended his statement on noticing that the building was still standing, in plain view, behind him.

Who sent in that news bulletin, to CNN and BBC? Why would they announce in the bulletin, which these news anchors simply read over the air, that the building HAD collapsed, when it had not done so? How weird it all is.

Anyway, there were, evidently, various clear and official announcements that WTC 7 not only would collapse, but, some hours later, that it had actually done so. And both of these announcements, widespread at the time, emerged well before the building did indeed collapse... as though on schedule. Do you find that odd? Many of us here do.

So, however we explain the bizarre foreknowledge of the impending collapse, people knew WTC 7 would collapse on the very day that it did so. But NIST has yet to explain how or why it collapsed, nearly six years later. Again, I find that odd, and I know I am not the only one who finds it odd. Do you also find it odd? If not, why not?

I suppose you will be able to guess why I predict that NIST will never issue the report on why and how WTC 7 collapsed.

By the way, I am not trying to trip you up here. We two are just looking at the facts that we know about, together in this public forum. We are attempting to make sense of this confusing array of facts.

I actually suspect that, through this process, you too may join the ranks of us so-called '911 truthers,' once you ponder all of the available facts. Building 7 provides a good start for that, in my opinion.

But it is only a start. There are many other strange happenings associated with 9-11-01. A surprising number of these cannot be explained by the official version of the events.

Some of the many anomalies -- so many -- point to damning possibilities, even likelihoods. These are what give rise to our suspicions, which you seem to wish to allay.

By the way, when you reply, please consider replying to my earlier set of questions -- including any responses to what I say here too if you like, obviously. By doing it that way, your reply will not be pushed too far off to the right there -->, in the screen display.

Show "Here it is" by ref

911myths is a straw-man fallacy site

The Straw-man argument is the favorite tactic of 9/11 "debunkers". It would be quite easy to go through that entire site and show how almost every single argument they promote is a logical fallacy.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Re: Here it is

This is in reply, again, to ref, our friendly debunker.

I am replying to your recent "Here it is" post, ref, as though replying to an earlier one from you, so that the discussion doesn't get pressed too far against the right side of the display.

Ref, I will look carefully at the webstie that you recommend. In return, I would ask you to look at this website just as carefully.

How shall we define 'carefully'? In my case, I wll read 80% of what is written there, or more. I will do this, even if I have already read some of it, and I have. But I have not yet read the full 80%, and that is what I am proposing -- assuming that you will keep your end of that bargain. Will you?

I have also already read most of what is available at the Journal of Debunking 911 Studies, by the way. I have a bookmark on that site. I am in this for the truth, as you say. Presumably, you are too? If so, please faithfully read at least 80% of the 911research.wtc7.net website.

I also would like to know if you have seen video footage of WTC 7 collapsing. Have you? If not, that in my opinion would not speak well for your ability to even wonder, realistically, how or why it collapsed.

Re: ref, and the Pentagon strike

Ref, this is in reply to a post of yours that occurs later. I am putting it here so that it displays better -- I really do not like long posts that get pushed to the right side over there.

Regarding the Pentagon strike. I believe you may hope to stir up some debate here, for or against whether or not a jet airplane hit the Pentagon. I have noticed that this is an (intentionally?) divisive issue.

Very clever. I am amazed at how clever the disinformation techniques are. And intentional disinformation is almost surely what is happening with this Pentagon issue. For more on that, see below.

And by the way, if the Pentagon confusion really stems from intentional disinformation, helped along by the US government, that fact says quite a bit about likely culpability. To me it really does look that way-- that is, like intentionally propagated confusion about what happened at the Pentagon. Now for my response.

You say, "I have criticism towards Jim Hoffman's work. Did you know btw, that he is pretty much only critical to WTC stuff, but believes a plane hit the Pentagon etc.?"

Yes, I am well aware of Jim's position on the Pentagon strike. So far, his work has me convinced. I think he probably has it right. He does meticulous work, and sticks with verifiable facts or, at least, strong data. He does not tolerate careless assertions. I like his carefulness.

But I also do not think it is necessary to form conclusions yet. The government is witholding evidence in its possession which will clearly show what happened at the Pentagon. There were many security cameras in the area, all of which were conviscated, as you know. Some of these will tell the real story. The evidence so far released tells a confusing and contradictory story.

The government released an (intentionally?) confusing 'five frames' from one security camera only. You have no doubt seen those five frames. The government also released the black box data, which when analyzed seem to show the plane flying some 400 feet over the Pentagon. Again, this is (intentionally?) confusing, to say the least. Jim Hoffman does the best job I have seen to date of clearing away some of the confusion.

The five frames show evidence of tampering -- in the color of one of the frames, in the non-standard and inconsistent shutter timing, and other details -- or so I gather. I am not an expert in forensic video analysis, by any means. We need expert analysis. The analysis that we so far have, by some smart and able people, renders this evidence suspect, at the very least.

Even you will agree, won't you, that the 'five frames' evidence is quite strange. How do you account for it? And why doesn't the government simply release the other video data, so as to clear up any suspicions?

You don't suppose the government might sense a need for confusion here, do you? And that they might happily add to it, with strangely altered and contradictory evidence?

The black box data, released years after the tragedy, amounts to an Excel spreadsheet. Even I could tamper with an Excel spreadsheet.

If the government had nothing to hide, it would release all of the available video footage of the Pentagon strike.

My own theory is that they are keeping the evidence from us. Why? Because the jet airplane makes a maneuver that cannot be made by a human pilot. Only a remote-controlled plane can make that maneuver. The CIA has remote control capacities, as you know. The technology is there. It is used in the unmanned Predator aircraft guidance system, for example.

I gather that commercial jets cannot (normally) fly at full throttle so close to the ground. They are 'hard-wired' to stall when at that height. When they land, such as at an airport, they must fly in stall mode, with nose pointing up at maybe 15 degrees or so.

The aircraft which hit the Pentagon was not in a stall mode, as anyone can tell from the impact damage. That was a direct hit, straight on. Also, stall mode cannot occur at the speed that the craft was evidently moving at.

Needless to say, with all these details I am quoting others' expertise. Common sense also comes in handy.

It is possible, I gather, to override the jet's normal inability to fly at full throttle at such low altitude. Remote control can do that, I gather.

By the way, can you imagine the skill it would take to plunge some 3000 feet downwards, or was it 5000 feet, while in a 270 degree turn, so as to then skim over the landscape to make a direct hit on a target? I am told that very few fighter pilots could do that.

Even makling decisions about when to begin the decent, at what pitch, and what sort of turn to make, are beyond normal human reasoning and prediction, I would strongly guess.

During at least half of the maneuver, I am guessing, one would not even be able to see the target. You'd have to guess where it is from brief visual memory, while in that dramatic downward-looping plunge. All with split-millisecond timing, and perfect control over that huge aircraft. Wow.

Plus, drastic maneuvers like that often render a pilot unconscious, unless he or she has had considerable training. You have to greatly improve your lung capacity to take turns like that, I am told. Plus, you need to hyperverntillate prior to the turn, and prior to the plunge. Otherwise you will pass out prior to completing your mission.

Hani Hanjour, of course, could do all that, due to his extensive flight training, right? Surely you know that story -- his failure at Cessna school and so on. I won't repeat it here. Incredible fellow, this Hani Hanjour. Somehow he learned how to do these acrobatic fighter-jet maneuvers, while failing at Cessna school.

Commercial jets can be outfitted with override controls. My uncle, an airline pilot, says that jets do not really even need a human pilot these days, to take off and land. It can all be done by means of the standard autopilot, in contact with a remote controller.

But my theory about the Pentagon is only a guess, nothing more. We need a real investigation, with access to all of the available evidence, to come to firmer conclusions about what happened there. The government's story about it is suspect, I would say. The evidence it has released is not just suspect, but bizarre, for some reason. Why, one might ask?

Alas, I bring sad tidings--"ref" will NOT be returning...

..because he/she is a WINNER of BANNINGFEST 2007!


Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Question, for you Col. Jenny

Jenny, you say, "..because [ref] is a WINNER of BANNINGFEST 2007!"

I was so wishing he would try to respond to my Pentagon stuff. I still am wishing that. How do you know that ref got banned?

Good question!

If you click on the name under a post, and, instead of getting a profile you get a blank page that says "access denied", in all probability that account has been removed or banned.

It is also possible that the account was deleted by the individual--I don't remember if I know how that works. But in all the cases of bannings here I've seen, that is the page you see if you try to look at the individual's profile after banning.

I think dz is using it as a default page, instead of saying "BANNED"--like some sites do. That page will also come up if you've logged out, and try to log out again in another window.

Course, ref could have been driven off by our lazer sharp intellect. I am a little surprised they got the boot but "respisa" , a far worse troll, is still here. Maybe ref was caught in a voting gang-- je ne sais.

Only dz knows exactly why! ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

How about you?

So, Jenny, would you be so good as to try debunking my Pentagon post? To take a crack at that?

I was more or less itching for a tug-of-war on that material. Then, just after I sent it in, the fellow got banned.


So far, alas, I have not noticed that you have any flair at all for debunking 911 truths, or even suspicions. Too bad.

Care to try anyway?

You cheeky little bugger ;-)

What do you think CROSSBALL is all about? I can "de-truth" with the best, baby!

Well, I'll consider it. Today I'm not supposed to be on the computer very long--have gardening and what not to get to, so if I take it up it might not be until tomorrow.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Will ref retrun to keep the discussion going?

Will ref retrun to keep the discussion going? Are you reading this, ref?

Besides the proposal that I am making above, I wanted to alert you to another thread on another node here, also about WTC 7, which came out today.

People have noticed that the WTC 7 penthouses collapse first, before the whole building just deflates, like a popped baloon. Look at what our friend 911veritas has to say about that:
The penthouses had to come down first...

Otherwise the building's edge walls would have fallen outwards damaging the buildings either side.

The objective of conventional controlled demolition is to have the building fall in on itself.

The center falling first "pulls" the outer walls inwards.

If you look at the rubble pile the outer walls are on top of the pile...

CD 110%

Best wishes

Back to me, Stiudent, writing. CD means Controlled Demolition, by the way. And 110% means that this fact about the pentahouse collapse makes CD a certainty, by his assessment at least.

What do you think of his point? Isn't it interesting? He also supplies this link to the very similar demolition of a somewhat smaller building, for comparison.

What do you think about this new data?

Today's blog entry on WTC 7, which I reference above, dealt with varying estimates of the collapse time. Here is what Real Truther has to say about that:
the six point six [seconds] is important insofar as the portion that fell in that amount of time was as high as it was off the ground. The middle crumbling in first does not figure in the least into the significance of that figure.

In fact anyone who has bothered to read the NIST report knows that it is the crumbling of the Penthouse first that provides a difficulty for the official story. WHy? Because it leaves less room for arguing hypotheticals about how the collapse may have initiated.

We know based on the crumbling in of the penthouse that the collapse started with a specific set of columns. We also know that starting with those specific (central) columns would have been a method of controlled demolition used to make the building fall inward. We also know that it is extremely unlikely (perhaps impossible) for the existing fires to have been responsible for either the free fall collapse of the center portion OR the free fall collapse of the surrounding building.

Back to Student. What do you think of those comments? Isn't it all quite interesting?

I will now quote a comment by BrianH, which you may also find interesting. Please send any of your thoughts along, after reading these various comments. Here it is:
This video serves 9-11 Truth by highlighting the penthouse collapse in Building 7 several seconds prior to the general collapse. Thanks 911veritas for the controlled demolition video - very impressive. I posted a clip of the penthouse collapse on David Cameron's website (-- the first video clip posted on 9-11 there) because to me this is most compelling evidence in favor of controlled demolition. See the clip at: http://www.webcameron.org.uk/library/video-1975

Show "I'm here" by ref

Check earlier

Re: Jim Hoffman, and the Pentagon strike:

Please check on my answer to this. I put it up there, earlier in this thread.

Of course, ref, if you cannot answer the issues that I bring up there, that too is fine with me.


And if you get banned from this forum, which seems to have happened, my Pentagon work above will have to stay un-debunked.

I think it can't be debunked anyway, in its essentials. Would any debunker care to try? Please go at it. See the post above. The title is, "Re: ref, and the Pentagon strike."

"Debunk This!"--just an idea...

I have an idea--how bout you blog your argument with a title like "Debunk This!" and invite all and sundry to give it a go?

I really don't have time to give your argument the attention it deserves AND think like a debunk. But if your really want to give you're work a run through the ringer, that's a way to go--let your mates--and others-pick it apart.

You could ask people for some sort of sign they're playing "debunk" and have fun with it!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Tx Jenny

You and I are thinking alike. I had already started writing it up as a blog. We'll see if dz and the crew approve of it...

An explosion at some

An explosion at some distance may sound like a rumble. Later he might have concluded that these rumbles were explosions.

Although his recollection of the exact timing of events may be slightly foggy I don't doubt his credibility.

what I want to know

Amazing coverage. When will William be on The View? When Loose Change FC hits? Fingers crossed for first responders tomorrow.

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Avoid putting all our eggs in the same basket

Herblay FRANCE

Bonsoir ,

For years I have searched everything possible on the internet concerning William Rodriguez and because of his importance in the 911 events I have given him a leading role in my film script.

Howerver I think that it is very important for the 911 truth movement that we do not become completely dependant on his testimony in case there are flaws in it that can be used against us like the cointel operation in the John F Kennedy assassination case.



Being able to prove that building 7 came down by explosives is good enough to put Bush anc Co behind the bars and that is why I think we should leave the WTC7 at the centre of our arguments for an inside job.



Self-contradict much?

We should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket, by PUTTING ALL OUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET?!? Don't worry, John A MITCHELL, I'm sure the people who are actually taking action in this matter, the scientists and eyewitnesses, and pilots, and engineers, and activists... Are intelligent enough to know that every piece of factual, verifiable evidence is important in this case. Maybe a few blog-o-holics might be fooled into putting all their eggs into one "good enough" basket, but anyone who matters will likely remain fully conscious.

Cointel indeed...

You two...

Hey, John, and CONSCIOUSNESS too, if you are still consulting this thread over time. Do keep track of the discussion of how and why WTC 7 collapsed, above. We have a debunker coming on board who wants to explain it. He seems to work for Jref.

His latest efforts at explaining the collapse of WTC 7 have sort of faltered. I guess that he is proposing a sort of 'faith-based' approach to the matter. He assures us that the government will put out a report, soon, explaining it clearly. "The check is in the mail," as they say.

If you find it interesting, please keep track of that thread above.


I have recently added stuff about the Pentagon. I honestly believe even this doggedly determined fellow ref will have no way to respond to the facts about it which are in plain view.

Arabesque, however, suggests that we stop feeding ref by answering him. I see his point. Soon I think I will indeed stop. But it is nice to see him get into these total impasses.

Another Physicist questions the Official version

Dr. Crockett Grabbe from CalTech and the University of Iowa suggests the only explanation for the destruction of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is the use of explosives. He also rejects Garcia's physics and backs Dr. Steven Jones themate hypothesis.

See the video here:


DIGG it here:


David Ray Griffin's Debunking 911 Debunkers is shipping

Just thought you all would like to know that David Ray Griffin's Debunking 911 Debunkers is shipping from Amazon.

Just got mine!


How did CNN and BBC have foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse, yet five years later, the government cannot explain it?

Beat me to it!

I just got an email from amazon telling me my order just shipped! =)

WEAU Website

I was reading the accounts of William. The second link above (or http://www.weau.com/news/headlines/7129071.html) led me to the stroy with one comment: "Posted by: Lori Alger Location: Thorp
Mr. Rodriguez sounds like one of those conspiracy theorists to me--possibly one of those who think our own country blew up the trade center? Ridiculous."

I posted a reply to view September 11, Revisited (http://www.911revisited.com/). But the comment was never aprooooved.


During William's speech he spoke about the stairwells in much detail. It was his job to clean them from top to bottom. He spoke about the key that he had which was one of a total of five that was capable of opening the locked stairwell doors.

Yes, the stairwells were locked!

Locked and only accessable without a key every 5 floors. If the elevators went out during a fire or other event then there was virtually no means of escape unless someone with a key opened the doors. The other four keys were held by Port Authority Officials who evacuated the building on 9/11 and left the people inside to fend for themselves. Far more people would have died if William had not taken it upon himself to go unlock those stairwells to allow the firemen access and the trapped people an means of escape.

Many other buildings also by NYC code have their stairwells locked with access every 5 floors. This is a very poor system especially considering that there isn't someone on each locked floor with a key to the stairwells. Relying on people to go into a burning building to rescue others is poor policy and somewhat suspect. These locks should be automated so that in case of fire they automatically unlock. At the very least have someone with a key on every floor or to have the fire chief with a key.

This policy was designed to protect the buildings stairwells from being infiltrated by terrorists planting bombs.

He also mentioned that the Emergency Staging Station which had been built after the 93 bombings at a cost of several million dollars was completely empty. This was not investigated. What did the Port Authority know considering that they had the other 4 keys to the stairwells and were trained to handle this type of event...to unlock the doors to allow and facilitate evacuation???
Together in Truth!


JJJ, I think this comment of yours is good enough to merit posting as a blog entry. It contains important information, and questions.

Also, I keep interacting (above) with ref the debunker. I don't expect to change his mind. But I do think it makes sense to counter what he says, and find issues he just can't explain away. It is for the public record.

When I have time I might post a comment, in response to his posts, about the upward explosion of the tops of the two towers. But in recent comments I have focused on WTC 7.

As far as I am concerned, he reached an impasse in his attempts to explain away WTC 7's quick demise, and instead of trying further he asked me to consult the major debunking websites. I will do that, too. When I have some time.

I notice that others here find that jref is mostly trash, and straw-man stuff. I will look anyway.

You might keep an eye on that upper part of this thread, if it interests you. Then again, I notice that he seems to insert himself everywhere on 911blogger these days. It may not be worth the effort to continue replying.

Again, good post about the stairwells. Blog it, I say.

Comment is Posted

I just checked again. My comment to the WEAU site was posted after all. It just took a couple days.