Talk:William Rodriguez

Answer to Combatant, Awaiting Response

If you believe the tone is mocking and demeaning, please cite specific examples and proposed changes. How is it "nitpicking" to point out that Rodriguez' story has changed over the years, that much of it is at odds with known facts, and that most of it lacks corroboration?

I can prove that "sometime" between February and December in 2008 Rodriguez removed the claim to 15 single-handed rescues from his website and changed it to "led 15 persons to safety." That's why I wrote it saying "sometime". You called that speculation. It's not.

How is the fact that Rodriguez asks for money not significant? Is the fact that he has asked for money in the context of claims he has now abandoned not significant? Is the fact that he accepted awards on the basis of claims he has now abandoned not significant? Is the fact that he allowed his Truther fans to damage their credibility by pitching his story to the press using claims he has now abandoned not significant?

How is it "speculative" or "mocking" to point out that even though Rodriguez claims he witnessed an explosion that lifted him in the air, his federal lawsuit that alleged there were bombs in the basement quoted neither Rodriguez nor any of his claimed 14 corroborating witnesses--in a 200-page Complaint that quoted dozens of others? We should add to that the fact that of the 22 or 27 or however many witnesses Rodriguez claims he offered to the 9/11 Commission, which witnesses the Commission allegedly refused to interview, not one of them was quoted or identified in the lawsuit. None of the fifteen persons alleged in the suit to have been "single-handedly rescued" by Rodriguez were identified either.

Also worth noting is that the suit alleges that when the towers fell and Rodriguez lost his assignment cleaning the WTC stairwell he lost his livelihood.

You say William mentioned an explosion on CNN en Español on 9/11, and this appears in the "The Last Man Out"-Final Cut-documentary, which you saw at the LA Film Festival. I don't see "Last Man Out," "William Rodriguez" or "Kerr-Smith" listed on the "Los Angeles Film Festival" web page for 2006 or 2007 or 2008. Willie's narratives on CNN en Englais have transcripts we can link--don't the Spanish ones have transcripts? Seems to me that ten seconds of Spanish CNN is "fair use". Even if we can't use it in the article, in the discussion page you can steer me to a Youtube video.

In the last several months on this page many Friends of William have claimed that the proof of their claims is someplace hard to find. One said it was in a two-hour "abovetopsecret" radio program. It wasn't. One said it was on the 8/07 LA C-Span tape. It wasn't. One said proof that the Glasgow Herald was wrong was in video of the Glasgow presentation that needed to be digitized--we're still waiting.

Your opinion that you are not enthralled by William's performance is irrelevant. The point was that the audience was enthralled. Willie frequently gets standing ovations and sometimes lots of donations at his shows.

The issue of the 9:03 time for the 22-story collapse is not "nitpicking". Willie's story is impossible. In 17 minutes he can not possibly have evacuated Felipe David, broken open the elevator doors, located a ladder, rescued two men from the elevator, visited the central security office, phoned his mother, broken open the water vending machine, and climbed 39 floors, unlocking doors. In June of 2006, almost five years after the fact, after almost two years in a federal lawsuit, after touring the world and telling his tale dozens of times, Rodriguez had failed to comprehend that checkable parts of his story were impossible. That's an important insight into the culture of blind admiration he created around him.

As to the Daily News article, I wasn't speculating about anybody's identity. I didn't even look at the article. I simply removed the language that tended to cast doubt on the validity of the information. Why can't we trust the Daily News? Please specify your problem with it.

"Like" is wrong. That's not personal opinion, that's grammar. When you say "like", you should be talking about things that are alike--like Braeburns and Cortlands. "Witnesses" and "Rodriguez' evidence" are not alike. If you think "like" is correct, please provide a grammatical analysis that is as coherent and logical as mine is.

The notion that the "Good Karma Humanitarian Award of 2006" is stupid is your own opinion and bias. Good Karma is affiliated with the KPFK radio station in Los Angeles, and represents some very well-respected clients like Barrie Zwicker, Richard Gage, and Steven Jones who are known for their honest efforts to promote the truth--as well as some less-respected ones like David Icke who is known for being a great showman. I only brought up Barrett as a second example of a source that was valid for certain things, like their own press releases and awards. He is no one's nemesis but his own. The limelight is a dangerous, addictive drug, and that's probably as much a part of the William Rodriguez story as it is of Barret's. Good Karma is an excellent source for the fact that they presented the Humanitarian Award to William and specifically mentioned the 15 single-handed rescues in the writeup. Besides, Good Karma isn't the source--fvnewswire is the source. Are you saying they presented a fraudulent press release that lies about the fact that Good Karma had presented an award?

So please advise what was unfair, speculative, and non-objective about my edits. Contrivance (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not be ridiculous and please do not take the wikipedia readers for morons. The whole article is mocking. I think someone should write another article since this author seems to hold the power to edit whatever he wants and he or she obviously conveys the main stream us government sponsored view in a Magister dixit way. I would like you quote here where in the law suit is there a reference to women having been raped.

I admit that I do find the article a bit mocking, but at the same time, drawing attention to the conceivably, or even palpably(??), mixed motivations for Mr. Rodriguez's testimony regarding 9/11 may well be relevant. However at the same time again, is the tone, or also type of factual content included in this article, not also "original research"? This is a probably dealt with in another Wikipedia rule. Which rule? It seems that this article is, while including only supported fact, includes facts that lead the reader to what may be the contributors' "original" (if not research but) or POV conclusion? *E.g.* The fact that Mr. Rodriquez was a magician (and or a magician's assistant), and "adroit at insinuating himself into the good graces of Randi's targets and eliciting incriminating information" is in so far as "Scoop Independent News" is a reputable source, a supported fact. At the same time the inclusion of this information -- assuming the reputability of the source -- seems to me to lead us readers to a conclusion that Mr. Rodriguez is unreliable. I don't know Wikipedia rules well enough. Is it "notable" that Mr. Rodriguez was a magician (or magician's assistant)? Is the notability of this fact "original," NPOV or POV? If one were able to find reputable source based statements regarding Mr. Rodriguez's honesty/reliability (should such exist) would they be allowed according to Wikipedia policy? If *hypothetically* Mr. Rodriguez had been called as a witness in a court case where he gave testimony against the interest of his family/friends, would this be relevant? Would one be allowed to include such information? The information in the article is all supported (probably) but is there a bias in the type of information included?--Timtak (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Press Coverage

Removed Press Coverage section. Only 4 items already cross referenced on the Reference sections. Reference has too many links already of Press Coverage from all over the world. For purposes of mantaining flow and compactness.Combatant (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You want to maintain "flow"? So you think "Press Coverage" obstructs the flow from "Other Events" to "References"? You're balmy. The limited press coverage is an important fact to highlight--one of William's central claims has been that the mainstream media are afraid to cover him.

Limited? Not so, If you want I will put it back in place and then fill it with all the coverage links already referenced on the reference section. I think everybody will agree that it will be repetitious.Combatant (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Put in all the Guatemalan TV shows and the Colombian radio shows if it makes you feel better. Why not? Are you ever going to get the CNN en Espanol that shows Willie talking about the BOOM! on the first day? How about the Spanish TV that shows all the grateful survivors thanking Willie for saving them? Contrivance (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to maintain compactness, how about doing away with those stupid templates at the top. When are you going to discuss tone and missing viewpoints? Hey, how about a "fun facts" section? I just noticed that if you google << "William Rodriguez" hero >> you get 14,200 hits, but if you google << "William Rodriguez" fraud >> you get 19,100. Contrivance (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So this is a little game for you. YOur agenda maybe?. I will add another template and let the readers and editors decide. By the way , if you google William Rodriguez hero, you get 269,000 hits.Combatant (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but << William Rodriguez fraud >> gets 863,000. Contrivance (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you will read trough it most of it is dealing with the government fraud of 9/11.67.85.126.95 (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about a section of William's enemies? I will provide sources, links, statements, quotes and motives. I make a call to action and name allegedly involved people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Combatant (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not, if they're encyclopaedic, notable, and verifiable. I think you're drunk. Is that where you want to put in the Homegrown Terrorist Richard Gage and the notorious San Francisco homosexual Brian Good that Willie is so jealous of? Don't forget Kevin Barrett, David Shayler, Philip Berg, Carol Brulliet, David Ray Griffin, and Annie Machon--all of whom were surely smart enough to figure out that Willie's story didn't make any sense, but didn't care enough about truth or Willie to help him correct it. Seems like your calls to action didn't work out so well before. Reprehensor already issued notices on 911blogger to keep on eye on the "vandalism" going on here, but nobody showed up who could read and write in English. It kind of looks like Willie's running out of friends. Last time I checked, Col. Jenny Sparks was still kind of sweet on Willie, so maybe he should knock her up, eh luv? The thing is, she doesn't like cyber-stalkers, but hey, friends of Willie get a pass for everything, eh wot?Contrivance (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you call yourself homosexual? Pedophile will be more correct. Jeaulous Willie? ha, last time I checked , he is in Europe still doing his presentations. Last time we checked you were harrasing Carol Brouillet and now you are doing it on her page here. Sarcasm from a pervert, that is a new one.67.85.126.95 (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't call myself anything. You think you can control me by threatening to expose me as some San Francisco gay guy, and you're wrong. Pedophile? I like a shapely foot as much as the next guy does I guess. What's wrong with that? You're barking up the wrong parking meter, kemosabe. You don't know who I am, and you don't know what I'm guilty of. I know what you're guilty of, though. I've seen you up the page, threatening Jazz with outing, and threatening me too. How come all Willie's friends are cyber-thugs? Contrivance (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so, look in your little past my friend.67.85.126.95 (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about and have no reason to think you do either. "Little past"? My past is vast. Please don't call me "friend". Contrivance (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, with Willie having friends that were spies and former FBI directors, like Annie Machon, Shayler, Madsen, Phillip Aege and Ted Gunderson among some, it will be pretty naive of you to believed you are an unknown individualn not findable and not identifiable. I know what you are guilty off so stop pretending. Cyberthugs? if you behaved like a human being you will not be going trough this. So go back to Carol's page to harrass her like you always do.67.85.126.95 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So once again you're threatening me. Thanks for proving my point, Ms. cyber-thug. If Willie's spook friends have two brain cells to rub together, they know that any way they think they have of identifying me can easily be faked. I'm not harassing Carol Brulliet. I'm trying to put in her wiki entry some information about her political endorsement of Kevin Barrett. For some reason both you and Combatant are very interested in keeping that information out. Why is that? Do you consider it embarrassing to her? Contrivance (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You are your own threat. You prove your own point of being a friking nutjob. Easily faked? ha, is that a challenge? Your agenda with Carol never ends, isn it pervert? By the way, writting to the spooks will not help you :-) (we got you down).23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that you restored the Press Section. Well I am glad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.126.95 (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Templates on the article and the discussion page request discussion on missing viewpoints, inappropriate tone, and lack of a worldwide view. So let's discuss already! Contrivance (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing Viewpoints

What viewpoints are missing and what can we do about it? Why don't the people complaining about missing viewpoints specify what they are and arrange to provide them? Contrivance (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can't support the claim of missing viewpoints, maybe that template should be removed. Contrivance (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted templates on missing viewpoints. If you won't discuss the issue, why should the template be up there? Contrivance (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Inapproriate Tone

How is the tone inappropriate? Words such as "mocking" and "demeaning" have been used, citing "nitpicking" about the allegations made in William's presentations. Specifically the mention of the PayPal button in close proximuity to the claim of 15 single-handed rescues has been claimed to be demeaning. No explanation of what's demeaning about it has been offered. Contrivance (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple, is your way to do mockery that he asks for donations. A reader does not have to luck next to a button to find it. Otherwise is like pointing every single article here were exactly to be found. "Right under the title" "Left on the picture in the Argus" "5 Lines down the logo and right on the date". Any reader of the archive here will know your attempts to discredit Rodriguez anyway possible and this is one of them.67.85.126.95 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not mocking the fact that he asks for donations. I'm pointing out the important fact that for several years he asked for donations in the context of claims he has recently abandoned. Contrivance (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Contrivance Said: I'm not mocking the fact that he asks for donations. I'm pointing out the important fact that for several years he asked for donations in the context of claims he has recently abandoned. MY point proven.67.85.126.95 (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should say what your point is. I sure don't know. Contrivance (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your insistence on the 15 people. He has been very clear about this and it was explained to you in the past that Victim's of Crime have rights and therefore he does not have to identify any of them except in court or by direct permission. If he wants to provide it fine, if not you can only speculate.67.85.126.95 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How is asking for some evidence to support the claim that he single-handedly rescued 15 persons mocking? Isn't it strange that he claimed those rescues, and his narrative said nothing about them? Isn't it strange that he claimed those rescues, and not one of the fifteen will thank him for saving him or her? Not one grateful spouse, parent, or child will come forward? Contrivance (talk)

It has a distinctly dismissive tone, this guy is a hero, not a piece of garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.219.122 (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How ignorant of you to think he was never thanked. He is involved with the victims and whatever he does with them it may be a private thing. You are just speculating that he never got thanked. You have gone around the internet blabing this stupidity without actually knowing anything. How many families, victims and spouses you know that know Willie? I bet you none, because there is only of handful family leaders out there and they all know him. What makes you think you have better informaition than the FBI, the 9/11 Commission, NIST, CIA and Department of Defense about Rodriguez? What makes you privy of personal information of other people you have never met, like Schroeder, Johanneman, Lim, Felipe David, Saltalamachia and others, than Rodriguez? YOur tone ( for Readers go to archive) about Schroeder and Johannemman was one of mockery as well.67.85.126.95 (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

When was he thanked? By whom? How does somebody manage to save hundreds of lives, rescue 15 persons, raise $122 million, and then nobody can lend him a spare bedroom and get him a janitor's job? I did not mock Mr. Schroeder or Mr. Johannemann in any way. Contrivance (talk)

That is for him and the victims to know. He did get help after the information came out and was put back on his feet. The victims? you did mock them, see archive. Also you mentioned his email list, you are wrong now, your information is indeed very old, he has now around 100,000 emails on his list. How do I know? I am on the list and receive his newsletter. Funny thing is that he can aleniate you directly with the victims and family members. And by name and address. Usually he responds after a long time because he is always travelling. Right now, he is in Spain, touring.Combatant (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So Willie has an email list of 100,000 and you two guys are the best he can get to speak for him? Why doesn't he have any friends? Contrivance (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Very simple, he has asked not to pay atention to losers like you and only deal with verifiably agencies and investigations. You are neither. Friend.67.85.126.95 (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So Willie can't get any of his 100,000 friends to help make his Wiki article sympathetic to him because I am a loser? That makes about as much sense as your other claims and his other claims. 63.199.155.82 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to mask your ip BG. HA67.85.126.95 (talk) 23

40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to mask your own. If you're dumb enough to believe you know who I am, you're dumb enough to believe all kinds of nonsense. Contrivance (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to. In your case is different. Say what you want, you know I am right. Big mistake. HA!67.85.126.95 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Big mistake? Is that a threat? Maybe it's time to contact the Wiki admins. Look what happened to Willie's rivals Johannemann and Jennings. Serious stuff. Might you send some thug to hurt the wrong person? Contrivance (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How dare you calling those heroes rivals?!!!! How dare you dirty their memories, like you tried with Schoeder! How sad of you attacking survivors. How sad of you to imply that hey were killed. Show some proof asshole. Start by calling their families if you dare.10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm you think calling people rivals of Rodriguez dirties their memories? You must have a low opinion of Rodriguez! I didn't dirty Mr. Schroeder's memory. If anyone did, it was the Loose Change guys and the We Are Change guys, who put Mr. Schroeder's impossible, crazy story out all over the internet, and then encapsulated him in the Loose Change Final Cut movie. But personally, I don't think that dirtied Mr. Schroeder's memory at all, because I think his whole story was a ruse designed to embarrass anyone who missed the joke. Contrivance (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And now is a joke to you. People who loved dear ones there and experienced the worst. Blaming the loose change guys now BG? Passing the buck ah. Keep distying their memories and keep calling yourself an activist-what a joke.16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.126.95 (talk)

Yes, I think Mr. Schroeder's story is a joke. I think the reason he tells it is because he thinks Mr. Rodriguez's story (the BOOM! the 15 single handed rescues, the hundreds saved) is a joke that is disrespectful to the families and the dead. I don't know what your problem is with BG, but acting out your beefs with him here in the belief that I am him is not appropriate and is contrary to wiki rules. Contrivance (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am on the list also. Maybe you can get in contact to some of his members like you do with the Activist and spooks around?67.85.126.95 (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of worldwide view

No discussion of the lack of worldwide view has taken place. Willie's advocates have instead chosen to attack me in this section. Please provide substantive comment supporting the template. Contrivance (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What worldwide views are missing? Some have claimed that evidence is available in Spanish TV media showing that William told the dramatic BOOM! version of his experiences right from the start, and that US media edited his comments out. Those who claim this have been remarkably slow to provide evidence of this. The CNN interviews appear to be live, with Willy recounting a narrative with a beginning, middle, and end that somehow just fails to mention the BOOM! and the high/low explosions separated in time. Contrivance (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous, your lack of understanding the media is apparent. If you are live and told you have only a minute, 3 seconds or 10 seconds to tell your story in a capsule, this does not negates or eliminates his full version of the events. Your lack of understanding media is apparent. Stick to Architects and computers.07:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What worldwide views are missing? How is my alleged lack of understanding of media pertinent? When are you going to provide the Spanish TV evidence that shows how Willie's US media presentations were edited? When are you going to finish digitizing the Glasgow presentation and show how the Herald is wrong? Contrivance (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding is pertinent due to your speculative tone. Otherwise we can point that out on thwe article as well.Glasgow is already digitized, just waiting from permission to make it available. Unlike you, I wait for the copyright owners to agree. They all there you just have to llok for them. Combatant (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Speculative tone" belongs under "Inappropriate tone" above, not here under "worldwide view". So now we have two responses from two editors that don't address the question. So let's see--Willie can't provide evidence for his case about the Spanish media because of copyright laws, and can't provide evidence for his case about the people he saved because of victims' rights laws, and he won't provide any evidence about his lawsuit allegations because he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. Where are the 27 witnesses he said he would provide top the 9/11 Commission? Where are the 14 people in the ABM office he said would corroborate his story of the pre-impact blast? Contrivance (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, since we are the ones editing here and not Rodriguez's, you still go around putting statements on his lips about copyrights etc. So you are a member of the investigation and you are requesting the confidential list? Who are you to request his sources? how naive pervert.67.85.126.95 (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So you won't answer the questions, eh? I'm not putting words in Willie's lips. You're the ones who made the claims I cited above. Who am I to request the sources for Willie's claims? I'm nobody, just an humble wikipedia editor and servant of truth trying to find verifiable information to support the claims he has verifiably made on his website, in statements to the press, and in presentations around the world. Contrivance (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, a nobody. Keep looking for verifiability. Just remember this is not a forum or a place for your agendas.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to bring your petgoat from DU here. This is not a blog, forum or your personal page to bring your agenda. Is like me going over there and exposing you.67.85.126.95 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Why Can't Willie get any Competent Help?

I've heard that Willie claims an email list of 65,000 names, so why he can't get a competent advocate for him in here and has to tolerate the aid of someone like 67.85.126.95 ("old 95") I don't know. Rodriguez does not control me and neither you. I choose were to write and you do not own wikipedia. Willie can care less what we do here. But I feel your agenda to attack him is a constant one and the need to correct your tone , insinuations and lack of respect. You get the same type of actions that you have done to others.67.85.126.95 (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) One wiki colleague under attack by "old 95" invoked Wiki privacy rules in protest against "not so oblique references to my real life identity" and objections against attempts to "intimidate others, particularly women, into silence by interfering in [their] personal and professional lives..." as 95 wields phrases such as:

"I do not have to be a wizard to find out who you are."

"you who works as a XXX should know ... "

"I know much more. XXX knows what I am talking about."

(After mention of personal specifics "If they all relate to you, then that is your problem."

95 has also been aggressive to me:

"Are you challenging me to out you?"

"Are you giving permission to expose you?"

"About outing people- It will be extremely naive on your part to believe it cannot happened to you."

Willie can surely get any one of wikipedia's 9/11 Truth movement notables on the phone, and no doubt luminaries like Ed Asner, Daniel Sunjata, Charlie Sheen, and Rosie O'Donnell. Friends like "old 95" are as discrediting to Willie as friends like Willie were to the 9/11 Truth movement. Perhaps there's some poetic justice in that. 63.199.155.82 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop complaining like a sissy. You obviously can write to all of them, sadly for you they all think you are deranged and a harasser in real life.67.85.126.95 (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

1/11 Changes to Combatant Edits

Restored ref to PayPal button because it provides a clue as to why William removed the claim of the fifteen single-handed rescues from his website.

Restored WR's claim that he raised 122 million dollars. That's what El Mundo says, and WR made that claim in Los Angeles at the Symposium.

Removed "publicly" because it unjustifiably implies that WR did so privately.

Comment about evidence in RICO suit restored to something like original as written some time ago by Jazz. More than one editor has pointed out that no evidence has been provided.

Restored comment that claims about movie deals and publishing deals have never been corroborated.

Restored link to globalresearch. Combatant is confusing globalresearch with global outlook.

Removed added British press quotes. That level of detail is not needed in the lede graf. The point about the "poster boy" is lede material.

Removed ref to paypal. It does not provides any clue but in your mind and your speculations. Your intent is apparent mockery.Combatant (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re edited what EL Mundo really says, not william.Combatant (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored publicly since you have no way to prove otherwise.Combatant (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored edit since there was no discovery process and many others pointed out Victims of Crime right to privacy. See Discovery process.Combatant (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed comments about deals of books as pointed out to you by user jazz2006 that to prove that you need original research and that is not allowed by wikipedia.Combatant (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed link to Globalresearch as an internet non encyclopedic source.Combatant (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored other views of British media to balance the piece. Other points of view globaly.Combatant (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are bogus and can with equal invalidity be applied to all kinds of absurd actions. William said at the Los Angeles Symposium that he raised $122 million dollars. Are you calling him a liar? "Publicly" is not appropriate because it makes an unjustified implication. "No way to prove otherwise" is irrelevant. Discovery process is irrelevant. William provided no evidence EVER. No evidence corroborating Willie's claims that he turned down movie deals and book deals exists. The British media quotes do not "balance" the statement that Willie was "poster boy." Contrivance (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

El Mundo does not, anywhere, quote him directly. He represented 9/11 for many in the Latino community and was involved in the PSA's and the board of the 9/11 United Services Group that not only collected funds but also provided programs for the victims. Publicly is not a contention but a statement of balance. That you are not privy to information does not means government agencies do not have it. He does not have to provide evidence out of court if he does not wants to. If he wants to protect tohose victims fom a circus out there related to 9/11, then more power to him. Discovery process is not irrelevant, is part of the judicial process. The British media counterbalance point of view from your angle.67.85.126.95 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says Willie has to provide evidence. The point is that he doesn't provide evidence. Discovery process is irrelevant to that point because it in no way prevents him from providing evidence. The British quotes do not even address the "poster boy" issue, let alone counterbalance it. Your arguments are not logical. Willie said in Los Angeles "I raised $122 million. Don’t take my word for it—go on the internet. Do your own research. You’ll find it there." There's no corroboration on the internet, but that's what he said. Contrivance (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You have said it. Is he obligated to do it for you? how come all those top journalists, reporters, news programs, radio shows and lawyers for the people he sued have not even bothered to question it. Is it maybe that they checked with the right "people" or right sources and found that "your" attacks have no merits? There you go again on Discovery Process, you don't get it do you? It was a lawsuit and it never ent the full mile. He doesn't need to provide you , me or anybody but the government, that information. Are you above the rights of the victims? I don't think so. Apparently to you, he did not save anybody, correct? His claims of helping people on 9/11, never happened? White House, was just a photoshop image, the groups he helped don't exist etc. Sorry Sir but here in NY he is a media figure and the victims for what I can see, are on his side.

You have no way to counterbalance judging by your edits on Carol Bruillett's page and Kevin Barrett's. Whatever he said in LA is not the issue since it is not scholastic, encyclopedic and therefore not acepted on Wiki and you know it. 67.85.126.95 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you maintain that Willie is not obligated to prove his claims? Do you not think that for someone to travel around lying about 9/11 dishonors the dead and their families? Shouldn't Willie stop making claims he can't prove? At some point common sense demands that one suppose that Willie's refusal to prove his claims is because they are not true. What Willie said in LA us certainly an issue because it corroborates the two reports in el Mundo that Rodriguez raised 122 million dollars. El Mundo is a reliable source. Contrivance (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He is not. Were you there with him? nope. I have seen statements by Saltalamachia, Felipe David, Salvatore G. and Johanneman and they all support Rodriguez's Statements. Whatever your issue with the man ( we know already) sholud not be related to the article. El Mundo is indeed reliable . El mundo does not quotes him, so get your translation done right.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can claim that a man is not obligated to prove his hero claims. That is central to the concepts of truth and honor, decency and civilization. Please provide the statements by Saltalamachia, Felipe David, Salvatore G. and Johanneman that support Rodriguez's claims. Does any of them support his claim to hundreds saved and fifteen single-handed rescues? Does Saltalamacchia support the claim that they were pushed upward in the air and the ceiling fell down? Saltalamacchia says he helped carry Mr. David out; Willie claims he carried out Mr. David alone with Mr. David on his back. My issue with Mr. Rodriguez has largely grown out of the dishonesty of his friends, which poorly reflects on him. You do not know who I am, and it is inappropriate for you to indulge in the delusion that you do. El Mundo does not quote him, but where would they get that information if not from him? They can't get it anywhere else, and Rodriguez is on record on the DVD that he sells making the claim that he raised $122 million dollars. Contrivance (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that Contrivance's idea of the article is to make it his own. Use the sandbox to play. Wikipedia is not a forum and neither is the talk page.Combatant (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page is a place for editors to work out their disputes. My idea of the article is to tell the William Rodriguez story in an even handed way. Your idea of the article is to obstruct the truth by wikilawyering and to remove or hide anything negative or even inconvenient. How come none of that big sack of press coverage cites is from Venezuela? Contrivance (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputes that never reach an agreement with you. Your idea is not even handed, it never was, it was sarcastic, with mockery and allegations to discredit without doing a thorough research and the reader has only to go and see the archives on this page to see your level of confrontation and the bitching when it does not go your way. Wikilawyering is what makes wiki works and stay out of libel and defamation issues. Venezuela? thanks for telling me, it will be the next search. I still have more clips from other countries that I need to translate first.67.85.126.95 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We never reach agreement because you maintain unreasonable positions, like the opinion that Willie need not provide the public with evidence for his claims. When are you going to finish digitizing the Glasgow appearance so you can back up your claim that the Herald is wrong? Contrivance (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

So do I, I have some stuff from Russia, China and Turkey. More stuff from Malaysia. I have Venezuela's paper from Isla Margarita, that was sent by another user but is not a link, is hard copy, I will digitze it and open a page archive for it.Combatant (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Charismatic Authority

We should have a section on that because the issue is important to Willie's success. Contrivance (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, this page is not a forum or a PR item for the third time.Combatant (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article on charismatic authority? It fits Willie to a tee, on all three legs (sanctity, heroism or exemplary character). Sanctity: his claims of supernatural aid in locating the ladder to rescue Mr. Giambanco, his many claims that his survival was a miracle, his conversion from agnosticism to Islam. Heroism: his courage in running back in to a burning building despite all the explosions, and in seeking the truth despite death threats. Exemplary character: he selflessly raises money for the victims, and winds up living under a bridge. He's not in it for the money, and he turns down the temptation of a political career and turns down movie deals and publishing deals. It's almost like Willie wrote his script based on Max Weber's sociological work. Contrivance (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop your nonsense already.Combatant (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Max Weber is not nonsense. He's one of the most profound thinkers of the 20th century, and Willie's persona fits the model like a glove. Contrivance (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Ref to the "Debunking 9/11" Book Cut?

Combatant made such a fuss out of the notion that book credits supported Willie's claim that he turned down book deals "from every publisher". Now when I turn up a book in English, published in the USA, available on Amazon, for which Willie is a co-author, he wants to hide that fact. Why? Contrivance (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored the item but it is not wikipedia acepted as a reliable source.Combatant (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You "forgot" to restore the names of the co-authors, all of whom are well known in the 9/11 Truth movement. Why is it not a reliable source? It's a book available at Amazon, and American Free Press has a wiki article. Certainly it's a reliable source for the fact that it exists, and the fact that Willie makes the claims he makes within. Contrivance (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not forget, the article is of WR and not others.Combatant (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Association with other 9/11 theorists through co-authorship of a book is significant. Contrivance (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Commentary on the Missing Press Material Cut?

Willie has verifiably told the British Press and C-Span that he told the whole story on 9/11 and to the Spanish media, and he claims that his accounts were edited by the American press. This explanation for the apparent discrepancy in his story as recounted in the "9/11 Attacks" section should be included in the article. Contrivance (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so, you are speculating again.Combatant (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not speculation. Willie verifiably makes the claims on C-span and in the Lancaster article. Contrivance (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Major Problem With This Article Right Now

The major problem is that the objective facts about Mr. Rodriguez are not kind to him. He has made reckless, impossible, irresponsible, and extremely self-serving claims, and he arranged to operate in an environment of unbridled cult-hero-worship where these claims were never challenged. Willie's abogaditos have labored manfully to try to cover up the facts by challenging the reliability and copyright legality of just about every source--even when the source is Willie's own mouth on video, and now they're burying the ones they can't keep out under a lot of spam. Commentator 67.85.126.95 has even expressed the opinion that Willy need not support his claims, and has attempted to intimidate several of the editors on this page.

What may be a factor is that it pretty quickly becomes evident that Willy has made a career out of traveling around the world telling stories that are not true and asking for money. That kind of activity is not much admired in polite society. Parallels to the James Frey story are evident. Contrivance (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

the major problem with this article right now is that since you two fucktards have droned on & on, back & forth, calling each other names, no-one with any sense, manners or grasp of the facts dare come near this page with an edit. however, it looks like you both fucked off out of it about eight years ago, so there's still hope.

198.147.19.2 (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User Contrivance claiming ownership.

User Contrivance has been claiming ownership of this article. User has been warned on user's talk page. manadude2 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not been claiming ownership of the article. I have objected to Combatant's continuing reversions to edits that are ungrammatical, unfactual, and omit important information. I note that the fact that the article is unclear and too long is largely due to edits by Combatant and her predecessors that lard on meaningless data in an attempt to obfuscate the facts. Contrivance (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that you started this spaming and the amount of garbage in the document. Things like "next to paypal button", "no proof ever found.." (by you), gossip from 9/11 websites, gossip from 9/11 bloggers, speculation of why Rodriguez do things, speculation of his experience (you were not in the building on 9/11 next to him). Constant and blatant harrasment on user pages acting like own the pages. Attitude in other articles, not only this one. Etc. etc. etc. People just have to see and read the archives of all your edits, the tone, the attempts and then also read your comments and atitude towards the image of the peoplle you are editing about to read the destructive agenda you have executed on wikipedia.Combatant (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Next to the paypal button is an important point because as context it suggests an explanation for why Willie took the claim to the 15 single-handed rescues down. Speculating about that is not appropriate to the article, but is entirely appropriate to the discussion page. When I say "no proof was ever provided" it's because no proof was provided. When someone makes extraordinary claims, the lack of proof is noteworthy. If you're going to claim proof was provided, please provide it. (And when are you going to provide the clips from "Last Man Out" or from CNN en Espanol that you claim? Willie claimed in LA 8/17/07 that "lost" CNN tapes had been found that showed that he told the whole story the afternoon of 9/11. Where are the tapes?) The transcript of William's presentation in 2006 in Los Angeles is not "gossip from 9/11 bloggers". It's important evidence you want to outlaw because you want to protect Willy from his own words. The purpose of the discussion pages is to discuss. It's not my fault if you're not up to the challenge of discussing. You claim the record shows my bad attitude, but you provide no examples to back up your claims. What destructive agenda have I executed? I'm trying to put together an even-handed factual narrative about William Rodriguez's story. You're making that very difficult by trying to obfuscate the facts, and by refusing to discuss the issues. Contrivance (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rodriguez is Hiding Evidence

Rodriguez' website 911keymaster prominently features a bio that had been featured also on Philip Berg's 911forthetruth website. In it Rodriguez claimed that he had single handedly rescued 15 persons, a claim made in close proximity to a paypal donations button. The wayback machine showed that this was the case. Rodriguez removed this claim from his website and now says "helped fifteen (15) persons from the WTC to safety." Rodriguez has now removed the archives of his website from the wayback machine. Contrivance (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rodriguiez claim that he raised 122 million dollars

William made this claim to the Los Angeles Symposium in June 2006. It appears also in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo. Combatant claims el Mundo says he helped to raise 122 million.

El Mundo says "WILLIAM recaudó 122 millones de dólares para los que, como él, perdieron todo el 11-S: inmigrantes, pobres, sin seguro médico y sin empleo."

Now even Billboard Spanish is enough to figure out that says "William raised 122 million dollars for those who, like he, lost everything on 9/11: immigrants, poor men, without medical insurance and unemployed."

Now either Combatant's language skills in Spanish are as bad as his skills in English, or he's trying to deceive us. Or both. Contrivance (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and the correct way is El Mundo claims, because it does not says, William says..., but William raised. Therefore the point is clear, El mundo stated the fact. If you find in the article the actual quote to Willie, then present it.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Willie claimed in the Los Angeles Symposium in 6/06 that he raised $122 million. Are you still here? I thought you were identified as a sockpuppet of Sharphdmi, Combatant, and WtcSurvivor. Since no one else is identified as the source of the information in the El Mundo article, it seems reasonable to believe that it came from him, since he is known to have made that claim. Contrivance (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

References

foreign-language sources

why are there so many foreign-language sources? it seems to me that there are enough reliable english-language sources to write a decent article. it's not clear what the foreign-language sources are adding.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 12:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to mention how ABC twisted his words

You guys forgot to mention that William Rodriguez said that the explosion he heard came from the BASEMENT level of the WTC and that it happened BEFORE the plane hit the tower. That's IMPORTANT!

Why is Wikipedia so anti-conspiracy? Doesn't Wikipedia care about the truth?

Also, ABC news twisted his words to look like he said the explosion came from the plane's impact. That was dishonest and should be mentioned on wikipedia, unless wikipedia believes that the establishment is gospel truth, which it seems to do.

All of these facts are on youtube if you want to verify them.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WWu777 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Grumble. He did say "an explosion", and "from below" (not necessarily from the basement), and that it was before the impact, but it may have been before the sound of the impact, and the speed of sound in steel far exceeds the speed of sound in air. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Mr. Rodriguez was very clear that these were two separate events (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxF4HL-kIfo&t=25s) (Begins at the 13:04 point). According to Mr. Rodriguez, the first explosion seemed to come from between levels B2 & B3. This event caused everyone and everything to jump upwards. He thought a moment about perhaps the explosion could have come from the "mechanical room" where things like generators, pumps, etc. were located. As he was about to vocalize his thoughts, he heard and felt a large explosion at the top of the building. The timing between the explosions was long enough that it excluded any relationship to the speed of sound. Approximately 20 of Mr. Rodriguez's co-workers felt and experienced the same thing. There were several explosions including at least one explosion that completely destroyed the lobby. Neither NIST or FEMA or any other govt. agency has been able to explain the cause of these explosions. Jtpaladin (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why is Wikipedia so anti-conspiracy* Because we only allow the posting of factual, referanced material. Conspiracy is just that, unproven and unsourced rumor. 205.204.248.67 (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay I know this comment above me was made a few years ago, but really? "All of these facts are on YouTube if you want to verify them". What is it with conspiracy folk and getting all of their information and facts from YouTube? Do you believe everything someone says on YouTube?Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Translation of his speech in Los Angeles in german language from french subtitles

http://www.aktiendaten.de/025ed0974c0718f01/02ac4c9984122e50d/02ac4c9cf308b4b01/index.html please correct my translation back into english from the original video, because sometimes it is very difficult to understand him. http://www.aktiendaten.de/025ed0974c0718f01/02ac4c9984122e50d/02ac4c9d000f4e101/index.html Perhaps anybody has better connections to William Rodriguez. I am waiting for response to get the permission to publish it onto my homepage. I tried to get the allowence by asking directly onto his homepage but I did not get an answer.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.99.173 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Emergency Exit Doors

I have long wondered about the claim that so many people were rescued with the 'master key'. I do not dispute at all that William helped individuals to safety. I have never discovered an explanation as to why emergency exit doors would be locked from the outside prohibiting people from escaping in an emergency. I had assumed there would be an explanation in this article but I have been unable to find one anywhere on the whole of the internet. Did the impact of the planes disable some system, were certian doors always locked? I think it should be included in this piece if anyone can locate a source. J. ORLY? (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read in the book 102 Minutes by Jim Dwyer that there was some type of electronic system that controlled the doors that would not allow anyone access to the roof of tower 1. It does not state what type of system this is, i.e. remote controlled lock, RFID proximity card, or mag stripe reader. J. O. Really (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:William Rodriguez/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is bias in favor of attacking personal experiences by survivors in the WTC. The continued removal of the first CNN interview which has been constantly being opposed by an editor name Contrivance is part of the real issue here. 3 of the editors already commented on their lack of respect and negative view on Mr. Rodriguez, making this article just an attack piece. All I'm asking is that the truth of his CNN interview be presented.67.85.126.95 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 10:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary source interview of the person himsilf conserning what he says he has experienced is reliable source

I red throug the IRS-information

"Proper sourcing always depends on context" "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" "a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation" In the source video(s) William Rodriguez himself talks live about what he himself has wittnessed and experienced alsofrom behalf of media in different countries (US and Spain). The most reliable source about what William Rodriguez has himself said/is saying is his own recorded voice and picture i.e. video. So lets get William back to the Wiki-page telling himself about himself - or explain me exactly what more evidence is here to be needed to state that William says he 1)experienced explosions and 2) is not satisfied that his testimonials has been rejected in the States, but not in other countries like Spain. --Mik-kiss (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, which do not include interviews and Youtube videos. The difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is explained here. Bradv 02:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

this article is useless as it stands. it states upfront that this man is a key '911 Truth' movement figure but then totally fails to explain what makes him so. simple descriptions are needed re what he has claimed and why this has been controversial, and what have been the retorts. at the moment, anyone coming here as a novice for basic enligtenment will go away none the wiser. 2A01:CB19:34E:9C00:35C5:CFF5:FCE0:7EA (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)