FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Kevin M. West]

Would be helpfull if you could define 'elsewhere'.

[Craig Lamson]

Many of his claims are false for example it's simply not true that the "towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft," there design was reviewed and it was determined it could withstand a single impact from a 707. The is dispute about whether this study calculated for aplane at approach speed or 600 mph but the lead engineer says it was the latter.

That is also what I understand. It was not designed to withstand an impact, but the lead engineer said he believed it would be able to. The funny thing is there are no calculation to support this.

Towers' Design Parameters

Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1   Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200

fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons

max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs

empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs

wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft

wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2

length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft

cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3  

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4  

The Richard Roth Telegram

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5  

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

...

4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.

...

5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6   Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7   Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8  

------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

1. Chapter 1: Introduction, WTC Building Performance Study,

2. Towers collapse shocks engineers, MedServ, 9/11/01 [cached]

3. Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93 [cached]

4. City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 131

5. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 134-136

6. Painful Losses Mount In the Construction 'Family', construction.com, 10/1/01 [cached]

7. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 133

8. How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964

It appears that actual failure testing has proven the calculations of these engineeers incorrect, as does happen from time to time.

[Evan Burton]

It is a fair call to ask the source; we do the same and so anyone else should have the same right.

The owner of the website says the image is an enlargement from a series taken by a NYPD photographer, possibly Dave Fitzpatrick.

More images, though, are available here:

http://nvrfrgt.com/html/911_pictures.html

There are lots of pictures available from that website. You can check on where they came from by asking the owner of the website.

Edited September 27, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

Upon further reading, there does seem to be some dispute as to whether Robinson designed the towers for a 707 impact, or whether he later calculated that they would be able to withstand one.

What is perhaps important is what he does say:

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

Perhaps even more importantly he says:

The events of September 11 ended the lives of almost 2,900 people, many of them snuffed out by the collapse of structures designed by me. The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable; none of us will ever forget the sight of those who took destiny into their own hands by leaping into space.

It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/webli...CB?OpenDocument

[Evan Burton]

That, of course, is from someone who was actually responsible for the building. It could be argued that they would support a pro-conspiracy view in order to maintain their professional reputation, that it could withstand such impacts and survive, that the only possible reason for a collapse was demolition... but he doesn't.

(Awaits the inevitable CT nonsense)

[Duane Daman]

I didn't want to believe that 9/11 was a governemt conspiracy , so I avoided the subject for a very long time .. and as a "conspiracy theorist " , that was not an easy thing to do ... but I knew if I found out that the official version was a lie , then it would be a very heartbreaking discovery ... especially being an American ... but eventually I started to look at the evidence ... and read BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT on many different web sites ... and after reading and weighing BOTH SIDES of this evidence very carefully , there was unfortunately only one conclusion I could reach ... and that was the sad conclusion that the attacks on 9/11 were NOT what the US government led us to believe they were .

There appears to be many more photographs available now , of the buildings that were hit that day .. It also appears that many 9/11 photographs have been photoshopped , possilby by people on BOTH SIDES of the debate ... and that is the reason why I had no interest in reading the article that craig supplied , nor trusted the photo that Kevin supplied , as both of them defend the government's official story and subsequent cover-up .

The subject of 9/11 has been peppered with so much information , misinformation and disinformation from BOTH SIDES , and the cover-up of what really happened that day is so immense , that unfortunatley those who are seeking the truth about this , will have a quite a battle ... A battle that will most likely be lost.

The old saying , "you can't fight city hall" is very applicable to the 9/11 subject , because those who are fighting so desperately to suppress the truth have the advantage ... They not only have the government behind them but also the media , which is for the most part , government controlled . ... and any revolutionary "truth movement" group which may decide to take on the government and their obvious 9/11 cover-up , would be squashed like flys .

So the best thing the "truthers" can do at this point , is to get the information out to the public ...Make sure the information is correct and not disinformation , and then stop wasting so much valuable time arguing about this on internet forums with those who are supporting government lies .

[Len Colby]

9/11 came up on a thread in the JFK section and the discussion eventually lead to Rodriguez. I thought replying here would be more appropriate.

1) Willie Rodriguez who I think I've shown to be a xxxx

This is where our discussion ends.

If you are so partial to the man perhaps you'd like to refute the paper I posted here

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;hl=rodriguez

Not a problem.

RODRIGUEZ (9/11/01): "I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.”

RODRIGUEZ (6/25/06): “As I was talking to a supervisor at 8:46 like chitchatting and all of a sudden we hear PAAH very strong BOOM!!! An explosion so hard that it pushed us UPWARDS, UPWARDS!!…The explosion was so hard that all the walls cracked the false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system got activated and when I was going to verbalize it was a generator we hear BOOM! All the way at the top..."

There is no contradiction in these statements. "Not like an impact...Moving furniture in a massive way" was a succinct description of what he later described in more detail.

It stretches credulity to bizarre heights to believe that someone would describe an explosion that:

- they though was an exploding generator (and later in another version a truck bomb)

- pushed them and others upwards

- cracked the walls

- caused the false ceiling to fall and activated the sprinkler

as “a big rumble,..like moving furniture in a massive way”

But you choose to ignore other discrepancies in his story such as his:

- claim that he had been trying to tell the media for years about the explosion but that he was censored. However when he and his lawyer were interviewed by “truther” journalists in late 2004 neither of them said anything about it. This suddenly changed in late May 2005. Also he had been interviewed live on several occasions.

- failure to mention the explosion in his Oct. 2004 lawsuit or various subsequent legal documents this changed after May 2005. Recently I discovered two motions filed by his lawyer in March 2005 though dozens of pages are dedicated to supposed evidence no mention of the explosion is made. Perhaps the timing of the change in his story in May of that year is NOT coincidental, that month a federal judge ordered his case transferred to the Southern District of NY (state) where his attorney was not admitted for practice. http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/

- statement in the lawsuit that he came to believe 9/11 was an inside job due to his “study of the events” as reported by the media but made no mention of his personal experience.

- statement that explosions had occurred in the basements over an hour AFTER the impacts.

- claim that his accounts of the explosion had been reported in Spanish language media. However he has never cited which outlets did so. He uploaded several news clips to youtube and his website but none of them contain such claims. He even told one NYC Spanish channel in 2002 that OBL was responsible for his suffering.

- apparent lie in telling me he had graduated from college

- saying (and it wasn’t a slip of the tongue) that Felipe David had been on the “B2 level below me” when he had always said and David himself said he was on B1 (the same level he was on).

- contradictory accounts as to whether he knew David

- contradictory accounts about the noises he heard on the 34th floor

Etc etc

Lots of people heard explosions in the basement.

No one disputes that there were explosions in the basement, another truther strawman.

The claim that jet fuel ran all the way down to the basement -- sight unseen by any of the fireman working in the elevator shafts -- and then exploded (?!)

is absurd.

“And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance."

9/11/02 CNN interview http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html

“A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.”

Statement at NIST public hearing in NYC Feb. 12 , 2004 (more on this statement coming soon)

Do you want to venture to gues who made the statements above?

1) There were no firemen in building at the time, this would have happened in the first few seconds after impact

2) They never entered the shafts themselves though they did take some of the lower level elevators but that was well after the fireball(s) went down the shaft(s)

3) Numerous witnesses did observe fireballs and/or said they saw/smelled jet fuel (or kerosene) in the towers. A few examples:

Harry Waizer: I was on my way to work. I worked at Cantor Fitzgerald as well. I was in the elevator. I don't know exactly what floor. Somewhere between the 78th and I imagine the point of impact for the airplane. And

the elevator just suddenly rocked. There was an explosion. There was flame

. I was trying to beat out the flame. The elevator was plummeting and then righted itself. And

then a second fireball

, the second one is one that hit me in the face, but the elevator did settle down at the 78th floor. The doors opened.

Larry King: Was your face burning?

Waizer: It wasn't burning.

I got hit by a fireball

that just -- if you can imagine a barbecue grill with too much gas, that just suddenly explodes, that's what I had. It just hit me in the face, then it was gone.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/lklw.00.html

"My name is Jeff Benjamin and I was visiting a client, Axcelera Specialty Risk, on the 83rd floor of the North Tower when we observed an approaching aircraft (American Airlines Flt.11)from a distance of aprox. 3-4 miles... At the time we initially spotted the plane, it appeared to be level with us. We could distinctly identify the American airlines insignia and my client commented that perhaps the plane had taken off from Kennedy and was experiencing mechanical problems. As the plane approached us it seemed to climb. I stood up from the conference table and walked over to the window assuming as everyone did that there was no imminent danger. As the plane came closer we could see that it was traveling at a high rate of speed and the sound of the engines intensified. Immediately before impact we could see images in the cockpit and the plane banked sharply. A split second later we heard an echoing shot, fell to the floor and observed a fireball followed by debris which struck the side of the building. At the same time you could feel the building sway every so slightly for a brief moment. We immediately retreated towards the main part of the office where

we noticed a huge fireball shooting out of the elevator shaft "

http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/7639

Mutuanot was in the lobby of Tower One when she heard the first explosion. Thinking it was a bomb like the terrorist attack in 1993, she turned to run, looking over her shoulder as flames leaped from a freight elevator shaft cooking her back and legs and right cheek. "It was a fireball with sand and heat, like a hurricane of fire," she said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/specia...th/1051698.html

David Kravette:

“I saw a couple of elevators in free fall; you could hear them whizzing down and as they crashed, there was this huge explosion, like a fireball exploding out of the bank of elevators,” Kravette said. “People were engulfed in flames.”

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/CantorFitzgerald.html

Firefighter Terence Rivera:

"As I got off the back -- the back step, there were a few individuals that were civilians that were outside that were burnt. There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. I took the can, fire extinguisher off the truck and then sprayed down the pants on the person that was still conscious.

At that time, I had asked him where did this individual come from. He told me when the plane had hit, a fire ball had shot down the elevator shaft and had blown people out of the lobby."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110343.PDF

More can be found here:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/insideth...witnessaccounts

http://911stories.googlepages.com/descript...ersioninthetowe

You can’t advance you case arguing from ignorance.

That you have to bend over backwards to mischaracterize the witness statements speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy of your Official Faith.

I did no such thing, that you fail to see the contradictions in his account “speaks volumes about” cognitive dissonance affecting your judgment.

Peter Lemkin wrote:

I'd only add that he had been in the building during the first bombing so knew exactly what a bomb in the building felt like. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Excellent point Peter! I’ll have to add that to my paper. Odd then that he first described it as sounding like “moving furniture” and only four years later saying he thought it was explosives.

Also, anyone watching or listening to him without an 'agenda' can tell the man is honest, decent and not to be taken lightly.

And you don’t have an agenda? The world is full of smooth talkers, facts speak for themselves. Did you know that he hit up the makers of Loose Change for money in order to appear and put them in contact with witnesses?

“I told them ( you ) that if this was going to be a movie release and not an internet effort, the rules of the game changes and that I, my organization should be compensated, in exchange I will give you the rights to the testimony and also unique exclusive videos of my 20 years working on the Towers. Finally, access to many of the eyewitnesses that are waiting to testify that were never interviewed before. Not a bad deal, isn't?”

To which “Aiko”, a truther, responded:

"So, you're selling witnesses, William? Worse than that, you're withholding the ones that were never interviewed before ... for money?! The truth isn't about getting "compensated."

Dylan, Korey, and Bermas couldn't be more self-less with the movement. I hoped you would be like them in this matter.

Forgive me, but you've lost my respect."

In a now erased thread on the Loose Change Forum.

Reported here http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...vs-william.html

And here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94263

The makers of the film decided to drop his interview due to "time constraints"

Edited September 29, 2007 by Len Colby

[Cliff Varnell]

I despise witness bashing, Len, whether its the JFK assassination or 9/11.

I imagine

Yes, sorting through your fevered imagination is unnecessary.

There is something about the word "massive" that eludes you.

I'll leave with this physical evidence, and you to your imaginings, Len.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Len Colby]

I despise witness bashing, Len, whether its the JFK assassination or 9/11.

I imagine

Yes, sorting through your fevered imagination is unnecessary.

There is something about the word "massive" that eludes you.

We could debate endlessly about whether his comments on 9/11 are compatible with what started saying after his lawsuit was moved to a court where his lawyer wasn’t licensed to practice and where as his attorney put it he was unlikely to find another lawyer willing to take up his case. Telling however is you refusal to deal with to other indications that his later version of events was largely made up. I guess that is the only way you can maintain your little fantasy.

PS nice deceptive editing of my quote, which was:

I imagine that only applies to witnesses who support your version of events. Truthers frequently try to discredit witnesses whose accounts contradict what they believe happened. Alex Jones has even gone so far as to accuse the FDNY (who lost hundreds of men including their chief that day) of being complicit in the destruction of 7 WTC. Do you despise that as well?

Your mentors in the “truth” movement have trained you well.

I'll leave with this physical evidence, and you to your imaginings, Len.

Completely irrelevant to this thread and already debated various time here and replied to once again on the "318 slide" thread

Edited September 30, 2007 by Len Colby

[Michael Hogan]

We could endlessly about whether his comments on 9/11 are compatible with what started saying after his lawsuit was moved to a court where his lawyer wasn’t licensed to practice and where as his attorney put it he was unlikely to find another lawyer willing to take up his case....

Very well said.

[Craig Lamson]

The world [and America too] is responding to William Rodriguez. Eat your heart out. He's believable, consistant and honest...when you have 1/1000000000th the renown he has, let me know.

Well there is a sucker born every minute.....

[Craig Lamson]

The world [and America too] is responding to William Rodriguez. Eat your heart out. He's believable, consistant and honest...when you have 1/1000000000th the renown he has, let me know.

Well there is a sucker born every minute.....

You would know Mr. Barnum.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=W...G=Google+Search

Where are all the webpages on you and your positive actions for humanity - or any human?!

Rodriguez has done nothing for humanity unless you consider lying a positive thing.

Edited September 30, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Morality eh? Then WHY DOES RODRIGUEZ LIE?

Or don't you care since he supports your worldview? Morality eh?

Edited September 30, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Your basic personality structure seems to be guided by hate and scapegoating others. I feel sorry for you. If you want to look for big liars start right at the top...vice Pres and just under him the Chimp in Charge....and their gang...they are the liars....they lied us into War. They lied us into fascism and a policestate. They lied the rich into tax cuts and cuts in everything for everyone else. They lied about things of monumental importance to all America and humanity. I am unaware of any lies by Rodriguez. You identify with these criminals in power for reasons only you would know. I, sadly, conclude, you can't tell decent people from those who are not in public life.

You are a fine one to talk about hate.

If I remember correctly you had no problem callng me a nazi, so get off of your high horse Peter.

You don't have a clue about who or what I am. That you rely on the postings on a silly internet forum speaks volumes.

You proclaim your search for the truth but you can't deal honestly with truth when it confilcts with your worldview.

Your abiltiy to 'conclude" anything is in serious doubt.

Learn to deal HONESTLY with truth.

[Len Colby]

William Rodriguez, a 9-11 survivor

Deanna Spingola

Deanna Spingola

August 26, 2005

This past week I had the great pleasure of meeting William Rodriguez, a humble man from Puerto Rico who worked at the World Trade Center. He looked healthy in spite of suffering from many 9-11 related problems. The occasion was at a special meeting at the Schaumburg, Illinois Township Library in the Chicago suburbs. This informative presentation served as a memorial for the many victims as we approach the fourth year anniversary of 9-11. In addition to William Rodriguez other knowledgeable and well qualified individuals presented their thoughts: Phil Jayhan, Dave VonKleist and Christopher Bollyn, a journalist with the American Free Press. This event, where there should have been standing room only, was sponsored in part by the American Free Press as well as Jimmy Walter and Eric Hufschmid, a physicist and author of the book "Painful Questions."

Wonderful he hangs out with Neo Nazis and rabid anti-Semites

On the 33rd floor, William was able to procure some dust masks from a maintenance office. The air was thick with suffocating smoke. On the 33rd floor he found a woman laying on the floor in a fetal position. She didn't know where to go or what to do. They had fire drills twice a year but because of employee turnover, not everyone had a clear view of emergency procedures. While some individuals intuitively respond appropriately in an emergency, others are absolutely paralyzed by their fears.

Strangely, while William was on the 33rd floor he heard lots of very loud noise as if someone was moving heavy equipment and furniture around on the 34th floor. The reason this is interesting is that the 34th floor was empty. Elevators did not stop at the 34th floor. It was off limits due to a construction project. The new security chief, John O'Neill had his new office on this floor. William said that this was the first time that he felt fear.

Gee he heard noises like moving furniture, where have I heard that before as pointed out in the paper the 34th floor wasn't sealed off

The only agency that was immediately allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

No it was investigated by The American Society of Civil Engineers, the Structural Engineers Association of NY and other enginering groups under the auspices of FEMA

The National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST), an independent investigative group was also allowed to scrutinize the circumstances. He contacted them four times but never got a response. NIST was funded by the government which gives you a pretty good idea of just how subjective their findings were. They were paid $35 million dollars and the investigation lasted two years. The taxpayers certainly did not get their money's worth.

She is certainlly confused NIST is a government agency As for the claim he "contacted them four times but never got a response" when he spoke to them (see my previous post) he said nothing about a pre-impact explosion from below perhaps that's because he spoke to the in March 2004 over a year before he changed his story, either that or he just forgot.

CNN spent a day filming and interviewing him at his home but when it was shown the following day it was thoroughly edited.

He spoke to CNN live on 9/11/02 and said nothing of the sort

William Rodriguez says: "I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can't even say a word." Thank goodness for the alternative media where one may still discover the truth.

He hasn't produced any evidence to support this claim when he spoke to a truther reporter on Oct 2004 he said nothing about the explosion from below

Edited September 30, 2007 by Len Colby