FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Len Colby]

As noted above he got back to me. His comments in quotes and bold, my replies to him in normal text:

On 2/22/07, William rodriguez <wtcbill@gmail.com> wrote:

“Most supposed researchers have failed to get the original tapes of all the trasmision I did on that day in English and Spanish (you have to pay for rights to the networks). It is a well known fact that I have said how it was edited and you failed to check where.”

Perhaps then you can tell me when and to which networks you spoke on 9/11/01 and gave accounts more congruent with your current version of events than you did to Aaron Brown. Perhaps you can give an approximate “transcript” of what you said. In that case I will contact the appropriate networks and try to obtain the tapes and/or try to get copies from other researchers. You apparently missed the part of my paper where I said why I don’t believe your claim that you had made such comments before May 2005 but were censored. Actually you said you WEREN’T censored on Spanish language TV so once again perhaps you can cite some examples.

In any case you haven’t really explained the numerous discrepancies in your various accounts:

- Why for example was there no mention of the explosion or your 9/11 Commission testimony in your RICO complaint?

- Why does it say in the complaint the explosives went off “1 ¼ - 1 ½ hours” AFTER the crashes?

- Why does it say you came to believe 9/11 was an “inside job” based on your study of information in the public domain and not your personal experience?

- Why did you tell Aaron Brown the first noise was a “rumble” that sounded like “moving furniture in a massive way” if indeed it was a massive “BOOM!” which through you upwards and cracked the walls etc and you thought was a generator exploding or a truck bomb?

- Why did you say the occupied 34th floor was unoccupied? Where you on the 33rd or 34th floor when you (once again) heard a noise reminiscent of moving furniture?

- Where was Felipe David when the explosion occurred?

Etc etc.

“Another fact always mentioned on my speech is that you cannot convey all the event in a 2 minute interview on TV and they had to cut substantial parts of it.”

You “always mentioned” this “fact”? I’ve seen most of you speeches and interviews and don’t remember you ever saying this, perhaps you can tell me when you’ve said this and provide examples of when comments of yours regarding a pre-impact explosion were edited out.

“I have many witnesses and they have already talked on TV about the explosions. Other people not connected to me has also come up with this acoounts.”

Please cite any people who have collaborated your claim that an explosion in the basement preceded the crash. No one disputes that there were explosions in the basement.

“If your intent is to "debunk" me, or attack me, let me remind you that I have the support of families affected and survivors of the event.”

You have done a good job of debunking yourself. Please cite the names of affected family members and survivors who support your claims

“Your BA* does not mean to me anything ( I was a janitor , remember?) , since a lot of people do not know that I have a degree in communications from the Sacred heart University of Puerto Rico.”

- I didn’t mention my BA to you but rather to Mr. Ryan and in that case it wasn’t to impress him but rather explain what field the reviewers of my paper should be drawn from.

- Funny that none of your bios or interviews mention your degree and that even during the Internet boom you were unable to get a better job.

“I only deal with people with PH'd's. Doctorates in the matter. Serious researchers.”

If I’m not mistaken Mr. Ryan is not Dr. Ryan and “only” has a BSc (nothing wrong with that) can you tell what subjects Ms. Machon, her husband**, Jimmy Walter, Greg Szymanski, Christopher Bollyn etc earned their doctorates in? Who are the “serious researchers” with “Doctorates in the matter” you “deal with”?

“I have spoken with many Research Institutions”

Perhaps you can tell me which ones and summarize how they responded to your claims

“Maybe in the future I will do a National or international debate and you could be invited to be present. I will present my witnesses and you will produce yours.”

I only need one witness, you.

Len Colby

PS I reserve the right to quote any e-mails you send me.

I replied to him the same day, he has yet to get back to me

His claim to have earned bachelor’s it seems was just another lie a friend of mine called the school and was told by that no one by that name graduated from there in the early 80’s he came to NYC in 1982 and was born in 1961, (unless he lied about his age on various occasions) if he graduated in 1979 he would have been only 18. Funny that he never would have mentioned such a feat.

I did a Google search for:

"william rodriguez" "sacred heart university" OR "Universidad del sagrado corazon" OR "university of the sacred heart "

I got only 12 hits only five referring to “our” William Rodriguez. All are copies or excerpts of an amendment filed November 19, 2004 to his original complaint it states that “He attended Sacred Heart University”. To me that means he studied there but didn’t graduate. Since this isn’t mentioned in any of his other bios or interviews if true he probably only studied a semester or two. It also makes little sense that someone with a degree in communications in New York who had been an assistant to and could probably get recommendations from “The Amazing Randi” and Mario Cuomo during the Internet boom, when even Wendy’s had difficulty finding workers wouldn’t or couldn’t find a better job than sweeping the stairs in of 1 WTC.

* I submitted my paper to Kevin Ryan one of the editors of the Journal of 911 Studies” and told him I had a BA in history.

** His reply and my response included CC:`s to Ryan and Anne Mahon, David Shayler`s wife.

I am working on a major rewrite of the paper and will post it here when it’s done. In 2002 he blamed OBL for his suffering. LOL!

John - Did you go?

[Len Colby]

bump

[John Geraghty]

Hi Len,

Unfortunately I was unable to attend. I recently started a newspaper and have been extremely busy getting that done AND doing my academic work. I know a guy who saw the talk in London recently. I will ask him what it was like.

John

[Don Jeffries]

Len,

You argue your points well and are obviously an intelligent guy. However, I don't really think Mr. Rodriquez's educational level or job title is relevant to the discussion. You may have shown that he greatly embellished his story over time; if so, he'd hardly be the first person caught up on the outskirts of a big story who did so. Human beings like to imagine themselves as being more important than they really are. On the other hand, his comments might very well have been edited out by whatever networks he was interviewed by. I know for a fact that the mainstream media is capable of this, and denying it afterwards. A few years ago, a fellow researcher sent me some unedited local Massachusetts television coverage, videotaped live during the search for John F. Kennedy Jr.'s missing plane in July, 1999. Throughout this coverage (which goes on for some four hours), it is reported numerous times that JFK, Jr. communicated with the FAA at 9:39 p.m., or just seconds before plunging into the water. They even interviewed a spokesman from the Coast Guard, specifically about this 9:39 p.m. communication. Later, the FAA would deny that such a communication ever took place. When researchers obtained videotape of the local television coverage of this event in the years afterward, all the references to the 9:39 p.m. communication had been edited out (although everything else was left in). So, it is entirely possible, in my view, for CNN, Fox News, CBS or any other media organ to later edit out comments that would strongly contradict the official version of events. For what it's worth, reading his email that you quoted indicates a possible less than stellar command of the English language. Perhaps this is another reason why Rodriguez might not have been able to make himself clearly understood at first. I don't want to belabor our differences on this whole 9/11 issue; I've made my feelings about that clear. I just mainly wanted to point out that questioning a man's credibility because of his alleged lack of a college degree (even if he exaggerated things there- and he may not have to- I have known Koreans who had PHDs from their country who worked in food service here), or because he "couldn't get a better job" than a janitor is really beneath you.

[Len Colby]

"I don't really think Mr. Rodriquez's educational level or job title is relevant to the discussion. "

They weren’t relevant until he apparently lied about getting a degree

"You may have shown that he greatly embellished his story over time; if so, he'd hardly be the first person caught up on the outskirts of a big story who did so. Human beings like to imagine themselves as being more important than they really are. On the other hand, his comments might very well have been edited out by whatever networks he was interviewed by. "

The case doesn’t rest entirely on what he said to Aaron Brown that day but also on:

- legal documents he filed (or were filed on his behalf)

- articles written by “inside job” journalists based on interviews with him and his attorney

- contradictions not only between his more recent and earlier accounts but between his various retellings over the last two years.

- his (or anybody else’s) failure to post clips of him discussing the pre-impact explosion in Spanish though he claims they exist

“I know for a fact that the mainstream media is capable of this, and denying it afterwards. A few years ago, a fellow researcher sent me some unedited local Massachusetts television coverage, videotaped live during the search for John F. Kennedy Jr.'s missing plane in July, 1999.”

I’d like to see these clips perhaps you could put them online on Youtube or Google Video or some other video host. How did John-John calling the FAA contradict the “official story”? (Perhaps you might want to answer that on one of the JFK jr. threads). Aaron Brown interviewed him live on the 1st anniversary of the attacks. Once again nothing he said contradicted the “official version”. Why would they invite him to speak live if they had previously censored him comments? In 2002 on a NYC Spanish channel he blamed OBL for his “great pain”

“For what it's worth, reading his email that you quoted indicates a possible less than stellar command of the English language. Perhaps this is another reason why Rodriguez might not have been able to make himself clearly understood at first.”

His spoken English is certainly better than his written English but I don’t think a language barrier explains all the contradictions in his various retellings. His story remained fairly consistent until November 2004 and then radically changed in May 2005.

“I just mainly wanted to point out that questioning a man's credibility because of his alleged lack of a college degree (even if he exaggerated things there- and he may not have to- I have known Koreans who had PHDs from their country who worked in food service here), or because he "couldn't get a better job" than a janitor is really beneath you.”

Again the question isn’t the lack of a degree but his lying about it. You have a point about the job though but there are other indicators he didn’t get a degree (the school saying he didn’t pretty much clinched it for me). I knew some Russians in a situation similar to your Korean friends but they had degrees in specialized areas of engineering for which there was no market in the US and couldn’t get letters of recommendation from a former governor.

I think I`ve shown quite clearly he is a xxxx and that his claim to have felt a powerful pre-impact explosion is a fabrication.

[Len Colby]

bump

[Duane Daman]

Again the question isn’t the lack of a degree but his lying about it.

I think I`ve shown quite clearly he is a xxxx and that his claim to have felt a powerful pre-impact explosion is a fabrication.

Since the word "xxxx" has been forbidded on this forum , shouldn't this rule apply to calling people outside of this forum this name as well ? ... Especially if they are not here to defend themselves against this accusation ?

If I were to post a comment here now calling George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or the people of NASA management during Apollo Program "liars" , my post comments would most likely be reported and deleted .

So why is it that you think you can use this derogatory term and other members can't ?

[Len Colby]

Again the question isn’t the lack of a degree but his lying about it.

I think I`ve shown quite clearly he is a xxxx and that his claim to have felt a powerful pre-impact explosion is a fabrication.

Since the word "xxxx" has been forbidded on this forum , shouldn't this rule apply to calling people outside of this forum this name as well ? ... Especially if they are not here to defend themselves against this accusation ?

If I were to post a comment here now calling George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or the people of NASA management during Apollo Program "liars" , my post comments would most likely be reported and deleted .

So why is it that you think you can use this derogatory term and other members can't ?

I always interpreted that as applying to calling other members liars (though as the rule is written it applies to non-members as well) . FWIW I don't see any problem with members using that word against public figures especially if they can back it up. I don't remember saying other members souldn't use that word against non-members. I don't remember a administrator or moderator complaining about this either.

I e-mailed Rodriguez and he failed to explain the discrepancies. I asked him about the degree but he failed to get back to me. My initial e-mail to him included a link to this thread, he is (I assume) free to join this forum if he so desires. If you wish to you can contact him and ask if he cares to reply. In the meantime if you can find any holes in my case feel free to point them out

[Evan Burton]

If I can just confirm what Len said; my interpretation is that you must not call another poster a xxxx.

If you want to say that George Bush is a xxxx, go right ahead - he is not a Forum member.

[Michael Hogan]

I always interpreted that as applying to calling other members liars (though as the rule is written it applies to non-members as well) . FWIW I don't see any problem with members using that word against public figures especially if they can back it up. I don't remember saying other members souldn't use that word against non-members. I don't remember a administrator or moderator complaining about this either.

If I can just confirm what Len said; my interpretation is that you must not call another poster a xxxx.

If you want to say that George Bush is a xxxx, go right ahead - he is not a Forum member.

Much better to have Forum rules subject to personal interpretations rather than trying to apply them literally.

[Len Colby]

In context it is clear that the rule applies to members even though if one looks at the sentence in isolation it could seem to apply to non-members as well. The underlined parts below all apply to members. I assume when John wrote that he assumed it was clear what he meant. This rule has never been strictly applied on this forum.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

EDIT -Typos (see below)

Edited September 3, 2007 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

I always interpreted that as applying to calling other members liars (though as the rule is written it applies to non-members as well).....(bold added)

In context th(?) is clear that the rule applies to members (bold added) even though if one looks at the sentence in isolation it could seem to apply to non-members as well. The underline parts below all apply to members. I assume when John wrote that he assumed it was clear what he meant.

[Len Colby]

I always interpreted that as applying to calling other members liars (though as the rule is written it applies to non-members as well).....(bold added)

In context th(?) is clear that the rule applies to members (bold added) even though IF ONE LOOKS AT THE SENTENCE IN ISOLATION IT COULD SEEM TO APPLY TO NON-MEMBERS AS WELL. The underline parts below all apply to members. I assume when John wrote that he assumed it was clear what he meant.

[Michael Hogan]

Thanks for reinforcing my point. In your original post you claim the rule as written applies to non-members as well.

In another post it is only when a sentence is examined in isolation does it apply to non-members.

Your two statements are at odds with each other. I don't feel like quoting them again.

[Duane Daman]

If I can just confirm what Len said; my interpretation is that you must not call another poster a xxxx.

If you want to say that George Bush is a xxxx, go right ahead - he is not a Forum member.

OK ... George W. Bush is a xxxx .... So is Dick Cheney , Donald Rumsfeld , Karl Rove and every member of NASA management during the Apollo Program .

Thank you , I feel much better now ...