Were the laws of thermodynamics broken on 9/11 in addition to the laws of physics?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Munkle, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Willy's changing tale:

    "Declared a hero for saving numerous lives at Ground Zero, he was the janitor on duty the morning of 9/11 who heard and felt explosions rock the basement sub-levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner struck the top floors."

    OR

    "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said."


    Read more at:

    http://911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    l4zarus likes this.
  4. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What about this one Bobby?

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html
    A fireball CAME DOWN THE DUCT OF THE ELEVATOR ITSELF? I thought the explosion came from below?
     
    l4zarus likes this.
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just as predicted more nonsense from you. I didn’t file the petition nor was I in any way involved. So why the **** would you ask me such a ridiculous question?
     
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The bottom line is that William Rodriguez embellished his story as time went on. That is a fact.

    In the beginning it was "rumbles" and "vibrating floors". Then it evolved into "massive explosions that lifted him off the floor, cracked walls, and brought down ceilings". He never mentioned any of that in his first two interviews I posted and even contradicts what he later said about the "a massive explosion coming from below" with his "fireball came down the duct of the elevator" previously.

    You can't change the facts Bobby. William came into the limelight of truther fanaticism as time went on and embellished to keep the masses enthralled and engaged. He was rubbing elbows with a few celebrities and was getting speaking engagements.

    You even have people like Eleuthera who makes idiotic statements like "William's story never changed".
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2019
    l4zarus likes this.
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s the bottom line for you. The real bottom line though as already made very clear is that he’s a 9/11 eyewitness and his claims are part of the evidence filed with the grand jury petition. OTOH you’re nobody who means anything and your opinion is not part of any evidence.

    I agree 100% I can’t change the facts and neither can you. So the facts remain as posted above.
     
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Correct.

    Eyewitness to "rumblings" and a "fireball that came DOWN the elevator shaft", not eyewitness to "a massive explosion from below" as he later tacked on to embellish his story.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes and you’re not.

    He’s an eyewitness and has made claims that have been officially ignored/suppressed and that are inconsistent with the official 9/11 narrative. His testimony is critical, your opinion is not and is irrelevant. It’s up to a grand jury to make decisions about his claims. They will not be consulting you or be interested in your opinion(s), that’s a fact.
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yup.

    He made claims about rumblings (no explosions) and a fireball that came down the elevator shaft which burned David Felipe. His later claims were embellishment. That's a fact.
     
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They left out his initial claims of "rumblings" (no explosions) and the fireball that came down the elevator shaft. I wonder why?
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can speculate all you want, It has no bearing in terms of the grand jury investigation. If they have an issue with his claims they have the option of interviewing him in person.
     
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Why? They don't need to. We have all his claims in black and white. We can all see how he embellished his story as time went on. That's a fact you can't deny.
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you think think that "sinkhole" didn't exist until the day of 9/11?
     
  15. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Dude, his claims are inconsistent with HIS OWN NARRATIVE. How can you not see that?
     
  16. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Actually, making false claims before a grand jury is called perjury. The consistency of Willy testimony would definitely be relevant.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is "we" are not the grand jury and the grand jury only has what was filed with the petition. So "we" (whoever you think that might be) are still irrelevant in the case of the grand jury investigation. So despite that you believe "we" have all his claims in black and white, the matter is still in the domain of the grand jury and Willie Rodriguez, not "we" or you or anyone else. Is this a really difficult concept for you? You seem to be really confused about it. I did explain how you can get involved though in another thread (Google Amicus Curiae brief) if you really want "justice" for the OCT. You're welcome.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dude, Rodriguez claims he has a list of eyewitnesses who can corroborate his testimony. It's up to the grand jury to determine if he and all the eyewitnesses are lying, not you and not anyone else.

    Agree 100%. And? Are you worried about this?
     
  19. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Why? As has been already amply pointing out, Willy's story keeps changing. That is a fact. Either he's not a reliable witness or he's lying.
    And as for his claims of eyewitnesses to collaborate his tale, welp, it's been 17+ years. If they existed, we would have heard from them by now.

    It's time to accept you've become so emotionally invested in the "Tale of Twoof" you are no longer able to think clearly and critically on the subject.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "We" already did, it's on video. YOU didn't hear about it because YOU are so deeply buried in the OCT manure you love so much that YOU hear nothing that contradicts or even questions it.

    Yet you're responding to someone you believe isn't thinking clearly and critically on the subject. Someone who posted several threads intricately detailing and critiquing how and why the OCT is a fraud and supporting it with OVERWHELMING INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE. So that says quite a bit about you. You need to look in the mirror before you accuse anyone of not being able to think clearly and critically on the subject. The only thing YOU know how to do is parrot the OCT (YOUR indoctrinated version of the "TWOOF") and insulting everyone and anyone who is not as devoted to it as you. Any fool can do that, especially one who isn't able to think clearly and critically on the subject.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It is? His 17 corroborating witnesses came forth on video to support his claims? Can you provide the link that show the witnesses he is speaking of?

    How come these corroborating witnesses weren't in the lawsuit against the government he was part of years ago? The one where he claimed controlled demolitions brought the towers down?
     
    l4zarus likes this.
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    2,572
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because you say Willy's testimony changed does not make it so.

    I've watched maybe 5 or 6 different times in which he told his story. He is consistent with the story.

    You are forced to say he changes it because you are here to keep regurgitating OCT talking points. You are on the defense, and losing.
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    :roflol:

    9/11/2001
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html
    9/11/2002
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html
    No explosions from below. No being "lifted off the floor". "Rumblings" and a fireball that came DOWN the elevator shaft.

    Yeah, he didn't change his story one bit did he?
     
    l4zarus likes this.
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can quit your phony ad hominens, I know it's your job to post whatever garbage you think works to contradict anything that doesn't support the OCT but resorting to ad hominems is just way too obvious. I never made any such (bolded) claims of yours. Try something a bit more subtle if you must.
     
  25. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The Laws of Physics do not give a damn about eyewitness accounts.

    So why doesn't everybody want good models based on accurate data about the buildings?
     

Share This Page