He not only claims he felt explosions coming from below the first sub-level while working in the basement, he says the walls were cracking around him and he pulled a man to safety by the name of Felipe David, who was severely burned from the basement explosions.
All these events occurred only seconds before and during the jetliner strike above. And through it all, he now asks a simple question everybody should be asking? How could a jetliner hit 90 floors above and burn a man’s arms and face to a crisp in the basement below within seconds of impact?
Rodriguez claims this was impossible and clearly demonstrates a controlled demolition brought down the WTC, saying "Let’s see them (the government) try to wiggle out of this one."
Well, they haven’t wiggled out of it because the government continues to act like Rodriguez doesn’t exist, basically ignoring his statements and the fact he rescued a man burnt and bleeding from the basement explosions.
His eye witness account, ignored by the media and the government, points the finger squarely on an official cover-up at the highest levels since the government contends the WTC fell only from burning jet fuel. And after listening to Rodriguez, it’s easy to see why the Bush administration wants him kept quiet.
Bush wants him quiet because Rodriguez’s account is ‘proof positive’ the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition, not burning jet fuel. And Bush knows if he’s caught lying about this or caught in a cover-up, it’s just a matter of time before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
In fact, Rodriguez’s story is so damaging – so damning – it literally blows the lid off the government story, literally exposing the whole 9/11 investigation as a sham and a cover-up of the worst kind.
And it appears the cover-up also extends to the media.
NBC news knew about his story several years ago, even spending a full day at his house taping his comments. But when push came to shove, his story was never aired. Why?
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm
Note: http://www.arcticbeacon...
Eye Witness Testimony Is Allegedly Conclusive That North Tower Collapsed From Co
Posted on Monday, June 27 at 13:51 by DiogenesContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«Â<br />
<br />
Reaction To Bush Insider Claim<br />
WTC Collapse Bogus<br />
Gets 'Huge Response' And Read By Millions Worldwide<br />
<br />
After the dust settled, a former chief economist in Labor Department<br />
shocked by enormous support for his story and vows to keep writing<br />
about glaring inconsistencies in government's version of 9/11.<br />
June 28, 2005<br />
<br />
By Greg Szymanski<br />
<br />
When Morgan Reynolds called the official story about 9/11 bogus,<br />
it seemed like the whole world stopped for a moment to listen.<br />
<br />
It seemed like a lightning bolt hit the heart of the government story,<br />
cracking it into a million unexplainable pieces.<br />
<br />
And when the dust settled from his explosive statements,<br />
the highest-ranking member of the Bush team to make<br />
such an accusation said he wasn’t expecting any<br />
"Invitations to the White House anytime soon."<br />
<br />
Two weeks ago, the former chief economist in the Labor Department<br />
during President Bush’s first term told the world he thought<br />
the WTC fell from a controlled demolition, indicating 9/11 was<br />
"an inside government job."<br />
<br />
Reynolds, a respected economist and former Republican conservative,<br />
made his claims after researching many aspects of 9/11,<br />
including scientific and engineering data<br />
for and against the government story.<br />
<br />
He presented his findings on the Internet in a long,<br />
detailed article, concluding:<br />
<br />
"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate<br />
over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7.<br />
If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is,<br />
then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis<br />
is not likely to be correct either.<br />
<br />
"The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable<br />
on its own terms. Only professional demolition appear<br />
to account for the full range of facts associated<br />
with the collapse of the three buildings.<br />
<br />
"More importantly, momentous political and social consequences<br />
would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals<br />
imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers<br />
and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific<br />
and engineering analysis of 9/11 right."<br />
<br />
Considering his place among the Republican faithful,<br />
once the media got its<br />
"claws into his controversial remarks," his words quickly spread<br />
with the help of cyberspace like an out of control wildfire.<br />
<br />
Not only did millions read his story on the Internet,<br />
but Reynolds controversial comments then drew<br />
instant attention from numerous mainstream newspapers,<br />
radio and television stations, including UPI, MSNBC,<br />
FOX News and over a dozen other major market local radio<br />
and TV stations.<br />
<br />
It was a story that "grew wings," a story Reynolds never expected<br />
would get so much attention and such a large audience.<br />
<br />
"I had a huge response and it really was amazing.<br />
I never expected so many people to respond so passionately,"<br />
said Reynolds this week in a telephone interview.<br />
"I literally received hundreds and hundred of emails,<br />
some agreeing with me and others, of course, disagreeing.<br />
<br />
"After it was all said and done, as things are starting<br />
to finally quiet down now, I would guess it was about 5 to 1<br />
in favor of what I was saying. However, I never imagined<br />
how much support there was out there<br />
for what I was suggesting occurred on 9/11."<br />
<br />
Without mincing words, as he did in his article,<br />
Reynolds quickly changed the subject, again placing the blame<br />
squarely on the government for not coming clean<br />
about what happened on 9/11, saying it’s important to get<br />
to the bottom of a "story that dwarfs all others in comparison."<br />
<br />
"What it boils down to is that the government and the<br />
mainstream media are not digging into the 9/11 controversy<br />
because they are hiding something," said Reynolds.<br />
"From a media point of view, it’s the story of the century<br />
and they are not even trying to connect the dots."<br />
<br />
Continuing to throw some punches at his former employer, he added:<br />
<br />
"It’s nothing new. The government has always lied about<br />
so many things. Look at the Downing Street Memo, for example,<br />
the document confirming that the Bush administration lied to us<br />
about its motives for getting into the war.<br />
<br />
"If they lied to us about this, what else?<br />
Well, 9/11 is just another example."<br />
<br />
To add more fuel to the hot 9/11 controversy, William Rodriguez,<br />
the WTC janitor who heard and felt a strong explosion in the<br />
basement levels of the north tower just seconds before the jetliner<br />
crashed into the top floors, recently came forward to tell<br />
his story, adding further credibility to Reynolds’ conclusions.<br />
<br />
Rodriguez claims a massive underground explosion<br />
brought down the towers. His story is strengthened further<br />
by 14 other eye witnesses who can verify his claims, as well as<br />
a burn victim from the basement explosion who he helped to safety.<br />
<br />
Immediately following 9/11, Rodriguez tried to tell his story,<br />
but claims the 9/11 Commission and the mainstream media<br />
have systematically censored his words in order to protect<br />
the official government story, a story ignoring<br />
the possibility of explosives being used to bring down the WTC.<br />
<br />
Commenting on Rodriguez, Reynolds said:<br />
<br />
"It’s not a coincidence that there was first an explosion below<br />
and then the jetliner explosion seconds later above.<br />
At least there should have been a thorough investigation<br />
since the timing of the explosions strikes me as an impossibility<br />
if you believe, as the government contends,<br />
that only a jetliner brought down the towers."<br />
<br />
Reynolds added that nobody from the Bush administration<br />
has officially contacted him about his statements suggesting<br />
9/11 was an "inside job," but said he was aware that<br />
"administration operatives" have carried his message<br />
into the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.<br />
<br />
"How high up it went, I just don’t know," he added.<br />
<br />
Asked if he was going to continue to research<br />
and write about 9/11, Reynolds said:<br />
"Yes, of course, I see it as a citizen’s duty<br />
and I hope to do some more writing on the subject very soon."<br />
<br />
For more informative articles, go to <a href="http://www.arcticbeacon.com">www.arcticbeacon.com</a><br />
where donations are accepted to keep the news flowing<br />
in the wake of media apathy.<br />
<br />
Greg Szymanski
<br />
An Interview with Gerard Holmgren<br />
by David West, June 27, 2005<br />
<br />
DW: Hello Gerard, thank you for agreeing to an email interview.<br />
<br />
I know that many people, including myself, have read much information and disinformation about the aircraft/no-aircraft used on 11th September 2001, and it is quite confusing.<br />
<br />
You appear to have a clear-cut picture, and are prepared to debate your opinion, so it is very kind of you to provide answers to some simple questions.<br />
<br />
Q1. — Is it true that the official account of events on 11th September 2001 claims that four planes crashed, one into the North tower of the World Trade Centre, one into the South tower, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania?<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
North Tower<br />
<br />
Q2. — What was the flight number of the plane which reportedly hit the North tower?<br />
<br />
American Airlines Flight 11 from Logan to LA.<br />
<br />
Q3. — What did you discover about flight AA11 regarding which aeroplane was used, and what happened to it? Please give references to your source material.<br />
<br />
According to official flight logs, no such flight existed on Sept 11, 2001.<br />
<br />
The Bureau of Transportation logs every domestic flight ever scheduled from a US airport, conducted by a carrier accounting for more than 1% of domestic air traffic. All scheduled flights, whether actually completed or not must by law be reported to this database, unless the flight is cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.<br />
<br />
No such flight appears in the records.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html">http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html</a><br />
<br />
Therefore there are three possibilities.<br />
<br />
1. No such flight was ever scheduled<br />
2. Such a flight was scheduled but was cancelled more than 7 days prior to the departure date.<br />
3. If such a flight was scheduled and not cancelled more than 7 days prior, then the database has been illegally manipulated or tampered with in some way, which of course raises new questions.<br />
<br />
In summary, the situation is that *according to official records* no such flight ever took place.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that after this information was discovered and published as an article, the BT almost immediately shut down its data base, and when it put it back up it had moved it to a different URL without leaving a forwarding address at the old URL (the one which was given in the published article), strongly indicating consciousness of guilt. Ten months later they doctored the database to try to include the flights, although the doctored data, while now claiming that the flight was scheduled, still has it as never departing.<br />
<br />
Thus all the evidence points to options 1 or 2, although option 3 is still a theoretical possibility.<br />
<br />
Q4. — Has any aircraft wreckage, or black box been found at the purported crash site?<br />
<br />
Nothing which can be identified as from an aircraft.<br />
<br />
Q5. — Are there any official records of passengers boarding the flight?<br />
<br />
If so, they have never been released. However, many media outlets did publish lists which purported to be official lists, but which were proven on close examination to be fabrications.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html">http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html</a><br />
<br />
So while one can never 100% rule out the theoretical possibility that the flight existed and the theoretical possibility that somewhere there are official passenger lists, the fact that the media published fake lists and passed them off as official, leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that no such official lists exist.<br />
<br />
Q6. — Are any recorded passengers known to be missing, or have had death certificates issued?<br />
<br />
To my knowledge there is no official documentation, but it's certainly possible that such documentation exists. Through local enquiries I have confirmed from personal contacts that at least one person listed by the media as being on that flight is definitely missing and that his family believes that he was on the flight.<br />
<br />
While I have seen little to prove the missing/dead status of those allegedly on the flight, I have also seen nothing to disprove it. There is a hole in that area of my knowledge of the subject.<br />
<br />
Q7. — Is there any video or other evidence that a commercial passenger airliner hit the north tower?<br />
<br />
No. the video shows clearly that the object was not a large passenger jet, nor a conventional plane of any type.<br />
<br />
Exactly what it is, is difficult to tell but it appears to be some kind of highly advanced secret technology.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html">http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html</a><br />
<br />
South Tower<br />
<br />
Q8. — What was the flight number of the plane allegedly involved here?<br />
<br />
United Airlines 175 from Logan to LA.<br />
<br />
Q9. — What was the tail number of the plane allocated to that flight?<br />
<br />
N612UA. The BTS flight logs record the tail number.<br />
<br />
Q10. — What is the status of that registered plane today?<br />
<br />
Valid, according to the FAA aircraft registry. Search the registry at <a href="http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm">http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm</a>.<br />
<br />
Q11. — So your research indicates that aeroplane N612UA, which was allocated to flight UA175, which is purported to have hit the South Tower is, according to official FAA records, a valid registration today?<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
Q12. — Is there any aircraft wreckage or video or other evidence that a commercial passenger aircraft hit the south tower?<br />
<br />
No wreckage.<br />
<br />
The videos which purport to show such a crash have been exposed as fakes.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thewebfairy.com/911/">http://thewebfairy.com/911/</a><br />
<a href="http://911hoax.com/">http://911hoax.com/</a><br />
<br />
The live shot (which did not actually show the plane hitting the building, but passing behind it, giving the illusion that it has impacted the hidden face) appears to have been animated in real time with this technology:<br />
<br />
Lying with Pixels, by Ivan Imato, MIT's Technology review, July/August 2000.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp">http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp</a><br />
<br />
And the footage shown retrospectively which appeared to show the strike directly has been animated with flight simulator. See the two links above for video analysis.<br />
<br />
Pentagon<br />
<br />
Q13. — Regarding flight AA77, which purportedly hit the Pentagon, what is known of this aircraft?<br />
<br />
The answer is the same as for AA11. Not scheduled according to the BTS records.<br />
<br />
So far we appear to have established that no commercial aircraft hit either the North or the South tower of the World Trade Centre, and that the aircraft which is purported to have hit the Penatagon was not even scheduled to fly.<br />
<br />
Q14. — At the scene of the Pentagon incident was there any evidence at all which indicated that a commercial aircraft was involved?<br />
<br />
No. In fact the damage to the building shows that its impossible for an aircraft of any significant size to have been involved.<br />
<br />
Pennsylvania<br />
<br />
Q15. — What information is available regarding flight UA93, which is purported to have crashed in Pennsylvania?<br />
<br />
It was flown by tail number N591UA. The plane is still valid in the FAA aircraft registry. The scene where it is alleged to have crashed shows no evidence of any aircraft wreckage.<br />
<br />
It therefore appears that considerable evidence exists to demonstrate that none of the four aircraft mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report actually crashed as stated.<br />
<br />
Additionally, there appears to be a total lack of evidence to support the Kean Commission's claim.<br />
<br />
Q16. Is this summary correct?<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
Q17. Do you have anything further to add, before we offer this interview for debate?<br />
<br />
There's plenty more which could be added on the subject of Sept 11 generally.<br />
<br />
Summary article: <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html">http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html</a><br />
<br />
Detailed research and documentation: <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html">http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html</a><br />
<br />
DW: Thank you, Gerard.<br />
<br />
David West may be reached at davidgordonwest@yahoo.co.uk and Gerard Holmgren at holmgren@iinet.net.au.<br />
<br />
Comment by Peter Meyer: When Gerard Holmgren first announced his discovery that there was no record in the BTS online database of AA11 and AA77 departing on September 11, 2001, I checked if what he claimed was true, and I found that it was. Accordingly I (as well as Gerard) saved the relevant web pages. They are available for download both from Gerard's website (as stated above) and from this Serendipity website. I discussed this matter in my article Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11 (published March 14, 2005), and I reproduce this section below:<br />
<br />
As regards the planes, we must first note that the terms "AA 77", "UA 93", etc., do not denote planes, they denote flights. The statement "AA 77 hit the Pentagon" really means "the plane which departed (assuming it did) from Dulles Airport at 08:10 on 9/11 bound for Los Angeles hit the Pentagon."<br />
<br />
The official story posits four planes, associated with four flight numbers, namely, AA 11, AA 77, UA 175 and UA 93. But we have no physical evidence of the existence of any of those four planes. According to the official story, the planes which departed as AA 11 and UA 175 completely disappeared as a result of the collapse of the Twin Towers, the plane which departed as AA 77 completely disappeared when it hit the Pentagon, and the plane which departed as UA 93 completely disappeared when it hit the ground at Shanksville. All four Boeing jets, big 757s and 767s, completely disappeared, with not one single piece of metal which can be proven to have come from any of those planes. Isn't this a bit odd?<br />
<br />
So no physical evidence. But how about evidence from records of those flights? Records concerning domestic flights within the US are maintained online by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. When 9/11 researcher Gerard Holmgren checked those records he discovered that flights AA 11 and AA 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11. He published his discovery on 2003-11-13 and it was confirmed by others, including the author of this article (who saved the BTS web pages). Late in 2004 as Holmgren reports, BTS doctored their database so that now when one tries to confirm the original observation one reaches a web page (local copy here) stating:<br />
<br />
On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.<br />
<br />
But there were originally records confirming that UA 93 and UA 175 departed (see the BTS web pages), so apparently these flights did exist. BTS removed those records to conceal the fact that there were never any records for AA 11 and AA 77.<br />
<br />
If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero.