Talk:William Rodriguez/2008 Archive of Talk

What a crock! Hiding behind wiki boilerplate! Contrivance (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is were it belongs67.85.126.95 (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you dont afd this guy, im sure it will be hard to claim his nn...--Striver 14:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any real (as in not Alex Jones nonsense) sources for this?--Jersey Devil 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Alex is real. --Striver 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This Page Is Broken--Recent Comment Can Only Be Read in Edit Mode

Contrivance (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. There was a ">/" which should be "</" You can see where it stopped, as I quoted the ~~~~'s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange edit

There is no citation on where specifically Rodriguez has altered his story from 2001 and 2002 from 2006 (even though the article declares it as if it were fact. This leads me to believe that the 'registered users' are indeed the people vandalizing the page. Rodriguez himself makes this claim, and you can see this evidenced in the following video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXU4IBSFnfM As a point of reference that is not cited here, making me challenge it's neutrality is the simple fact that a number of witnesses corroborated Rodriguez, including the building manager. This is easily found in a simple Google search, under API, and other easily accessed sources. The fact none are referenced, again leads us to the easy conclusion that there is no neutrality in this article, but instead, it is intended as a hit piece to the Truth movement. You might wonder why the fact that he was directly responsible for the saving of over 500 lives takes second seat to the 'controversy' that he supposedly changed his story, yet you can't even be bothered to cite when it happened! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.126.54 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean with this? --Striver 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are looking for truth I expect you will leave the truth that he changed his story shortly after becoming a media star in this bio. He did not always say there were bombs in the building and the "TRUTH" should not be edited out of his bio.

I'm not even including the fact that he changed his story after media attention and his law suit. You people like to look for motives for the government to lie but never anyone else. Is Walter and/or Chavez paying him to change his story? Did he change his story to sue? These are questions which should be raised as someone seeking truth.

Im sorry, but i dont get it. could you be more specific? If he truly did change his story, that would be notable (if sourced, no OR), but i fail to see how he changed his story. Could you give specific references? Thanks --Striver 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If he changed his story and if that fact is not in the article, then the article is completely worthless. Hi There 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove he changed his story then present the evidence of it. However, there are countless other testimonies that agree with explosive noises coming from the buildings. His claim is well supported by other testimony; there is little reason to doubt it. Kevin77v 15:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not think this is it:
"William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.
"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said"
From CNN http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/ IceHunter 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes me cringe. Someone is pooping stinky crap because he or she works for the disinformation agency. Get out of here, disinfo agent, you're reaking up the place! No one appreciates your pro-war, 911 lying crap. Take it somewhere else.

Shouldn't nonsense from disturbed anons like that be deleted? IceHunter 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a friend who believes not only in 9/11 as a conspiracy, but also JFK, the Moon Landings and a couple of other high profile situations all under the guise of State subterfuge. I think that there is a case of mass hysteria that goes on and people are gullible to the point of beleiving anything that makes them feel that 'the other' is to blame.Ricoyote 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

fact

The lines is already sourced, see the link at the end of the line? --Striver 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am friends with Willie. I met him after I learned the SCIENCE of 9/11 Truth. There really is no debate when you take the time to REALLY look at the evidence and all of this slander about Willie is just that.

His story has been proven true many times...just Google William Rodriguez on CSPAN to see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Frye (talk • contribs) 00:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Which version of Rodriguez's ever-changing story do you think has been "proven true"? Please present your evidence, since neither Rodriguez, nor any of his sockpuppets, nor anyone among his minuscule cadre of tinhat wearing groupies has done so thusfar. Oh, and as for your assertion that Rodriguez has been "slandered" here, please provide evidence of that as well, as that would certainly be against the Wikipedia rules. --Jazz2006 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The latest version, the one with the reunion of his fellow survivors putting together the events of the day, the one on C-Span. Apparently you were asked for proof to your assertions that Rodriguez have been using sock puppets and have provided none. By saying "is my point of view", is not good enough. Slandered-your insults to the guy, in the discussion page is more than enough proof. Have you ever contacted him? You call everybody that does not agree with you groupies? How the hell do you know what I believe and what I don't? HOw in the Freaking world can you tell me if I only want fairness in the articles or otherwise. You are very out of line here.67.85.126.149 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, and no idea why you are responding to my query of more than 6 weeks ago to an editor who was then using the name Rick Frye, as though my query was directed to you. It is especially puzzling since you have been responding to my more recent posts directed to you under your IP address, but you had not until now - some 6 weeks after the fact - responded on behalf of "Rick Frye". Have you posted in the wrong location, perhaps? As for the rest of your post, it sounds quite frenetic, aside from being quite wrong on all counts. Maybe you should calm down a bit and try to post more coherently on the discussion page so that others might understand what you are talking about. Just a suggestion. {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}

You never have any idea what anybody is talking about. Who is Rick Frye? I am still waiting for your proof of your Rodriguez statement about him using different ip addresses. Still waiting on your proof to support your accusations.67.85.126.95 (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when incoherent people post incoherent posts, it is often difficult to understand what the heck they're talking about. Most of your posts fall into this category. As for who Rick Frye is, take a look above at the post to which I responded, after which you jumped in with more of your usual nonsensical blather. See that bit at the end of the post to which I replied? The part that identifies the poster by the user name "Rick Frye"? Sheesh. And as for Rodriguez using multiple IP addresses, it is not only obvious to anyone who knows how to authenticate IP addresses, some of Rodriguez's previous sockpuppet accounts were banned from editing Wikipedia as a direct result of his longstanding sockpuppetry. So, this is nothing new for Rodriguez. He appears to be engaging in the same old crap that he's been engaging in for quite some time here. It's sad in a way, but not at all surprising.{Jazz2006 (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

fact error in article

I want to submit a notification about a fact error in the first paragraph of the William Rodriguez article. It says that he alleges government involvement and coverup concerning 9/11. As a reporter who interviewed him and asked him specific questions about his beleifs when he came to my community of Eau Claire, Wis., I can say that is only half true. Mr. Rodriguez specifically told me he doesn't necesarily think the government was involved in the attacks. He does think officials are withholding considerable information, and that they may be complicit in the attacks by failing to take warnings or intelligence seriously. But he specifically said he doesn't think there was a specific government conspiracy related to the attack's cause, even if the government is withholding information and the media is failing to expose that. It's easy to assume that he thinks the government is specifically involved, since he is a part of the truth movement, segments of which do beleive that. Many people around him have said such things, and his words could be taken to mean that. But as of Friday, April 20, he said he doesn't think the government was involved in executing or organizing the attacks. It's an important distinction. I can supply my news article chronicling this if need be.

Brian Reisinger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.246.98 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The government is too big of a body to enact such a conspiracy. Too many people would know the secret and it would soon get out. If the conspiracy were to hold true, then the group would have to be a "tight knit" select few who knew the "big picture" and everyone else would have to know only their job and not realize that they are even playing a role until the events unfold. After the fact, who would want to be named as the one who did it? Silence is essentially assured. The government cover-up/misinformation could easily have been created to hide the fact that the intelligence community got caught with their pants down. After all, who wants to claim that their highly prestigious organization (CIA/FBI/ATF) was completely caught unaware when they are supposed to be the best in the world? This was not a "government conspiracy" but a few people in high positions declaring war on the US to further their own interests and assure their own fortunes.208.254.130.235 (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

i feel sorry for you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.77.238.191 (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

poor sourcing

It seems that everything in this article is sources to very marginal and questionable 9/11 conspiracy outlets.

It really lacks credibility at the moment.

HOW SO? HAVE YOU READ THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS? THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO HEARD THE SAME THING.

John McAdams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.48.30.18 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

It seems to me that "prisonplanet" and "google video" are not appropriate sources according to the Wikipedia guidelines and that perhaps the references to them in this article should be removed. Jazz2006 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

to have this whole page hijacked by jazz2006 to post a whole Rico Lawsuit, is ridiculous. How can we ban this LasherL from this?

The RICO lawsuit section was part of the article, and I have merely added some factual content to that section. In doing so, by the way, I have merely scratched the surface of that lawsuit. Did you miss the part that tells you that the lawsuit is 237 pages long? I have simply distilled that 237 pages down into an easily digestible summary. It is hardly "posting the whole lawsuit" but it does give context and factual content to the section.

Jazz2006 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Not only does his biography sound like a terribly written press release, but major portions seem to be, ah, lifted from here:

http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/Rodriguez.htm

This article needs some serious work.

--John

I have seen that a page with my name has been extremely vandalized by a user named jazz2006. This person goes with the name LashL on the James Randi Foundation forums and have been attacking Mr. Rodriguez personally on their threads. It is obvious that he intents to make me look like a conspiracy nut without noting that he is not part of the 9/11 truth movement even though he have done speeches in many events by them. Also by implying libelous positions he has not have not taken or have removed himself from. With the amount of interviews he does in a week this las 6 years, it will be impossible for him to correct each one of them. Jazz2005 has actually used the same articles that Mr. Rodriguez has attacked on radio and TV to imply that he support them. Is there is anything I can do to revert to serious info and to lock the page from more vandalism?

What are you talking about? This isn't vandalism. I have simply added factual content and context to an existing article. The documents are a matter of public record, having been filed with the court. The facts that I have posted are easily verifiable - all you have to do is follow the links and read the publicly available documents for yourself. Since you have not signed your post, I have no idea who you are or what you are talking about when you claim that my intent is to make you look like a conspiracy nut. How could I when you are an anonymous person posting on this discussion thread? And, in any event, all that I have posted are facts which are, again, easily verifiable. How on earth you think that is somehow wrong is beyond me, I'm afraid. Jazz2006 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor Change

There was an inappropriate "reference needed" following the mention of the National Hero Award. This award and the subsequent reference to the founding of an organization are both documented in the cited article from the Christian Science Monitor at the end of the sentence. Wowest 07:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So it is. Although I didn't see it at first (note to self: get Firefox or some real browser with working search functions). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) It's nice when someone steps up and admits to an error. I had no idea who put it there, and didn't really care. ... What browser are you editing with now? Wowest 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

added links to Speakers Bureaus and also to International Travels. Linked to John Schroeder info on the web as well.Wtcsurvivor (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removals

During the course of vandal patrol, I reverted an IP that was blanking referenced content without an edit summary. I thought it was plain old vandalism, so I reverted it and warned the user. They left me a note on my talk page saying that the content they were removing was "character assassination". I agreed to look at it, and when I did, I realized that there were indeed a lot of problems with the sections they had been removing. So I went through and did the best I could to remove the parts I thought were particularly bad without mangling the entire article or removing referenced content that wasn't defamatory. I probably did a pretty bad job of it, so I invite others to review my edit and fix my errors (though please don't revert me wholesale, since I made some copy edits and fixes in the same edit).

The specific problems I thought existed with the content included original arguments that seemed like they were pushing a particular point of view, as well as more mundane problems such as focusing way too much attention on tiny details. I hope folks can discuss here and come to an agreement about the material! Thanks all, delldot talk 21:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed American Free Press for unreliable source, Christopher Bollyn the reporter quoted was fired for writing made up stories. Rodriguez also spoke against his articles and how he changed his words around. Funny how the writer goes and quotes all the unreliable sources to fit her message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrandi (talk • contribs) 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not me who added the AFP sources. They were added by a Rodriguez supporter a long time ago. You can check the history of the page yourself to verify that. Also, Rodriguez's trip to Venezuela was arranged by Bollyn and funded by AFP and he only distanced himself from them after public criticism for being in so tight with blatant anti-Semites. {Jazz2006 (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)}

Obviously a lie from Jazz2006. Rodriguez was invited initially by AFP and instead went with Jimmy Walter who paid for the whole trip. Also Rodriguez cut ties with Bollyn due to his visit to Venezuela. Bollyn acted against Rodriguez's recomendations while speaking against zionism. Rodriguez openly called him an anti-semite and expose him as a liar. Source? Rodriguez, Walter and Bollyn himself. Jazz, do your research, email Rodriguez. Your hate is obvious. Wtcsurvivor (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, "wtcsurvivor", or should I call you "jrandi"? You would do well to read the rules of this site and not go around calling people liars or making wild accusations such as those above. I have not told any lies whatsoever, and I harbour no "hate" for Rodriguez. You should look up the rules about editing articles without providing proper reasons and without providing proper sources. You should also look up the rules regarding "original research" and the rules regarding civility while you're at it. Jazz2006 (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are excused, should I call you Lashl? I read the rules and have stated that it is a false statement coming from you since I called Mr. Rodriguez himself, then called American Free Press and finally got an email from Jimmy walter to call the statement you posted incorrect. Have you called any of them? Wtcsurvivor (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You claim that you have read the rules, but you clearly do not comprehend them. I have made no false statements whatsoever, and your false accusations to the contrary carry no weight or substance whatsoever. Again, I suggest that you review the rules regarding civility and the rules regarding "original research" as it is blatantly apparent that you do not understand them. Jazz2006 (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Added the National Latino Pride Award with link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrandi (talk • contribs) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed biased indications that his story changed when he joined the 9/11 truth movement. Many interviews in Spanish that does not points to his involvement later on to the movement.Wtcsurvivor 04:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved blocked to news items since it clearly states the point of view of the reporter. Also the line does makes a mention to "truthers" who many wikipedia readers does not understand. there are many articles mentioning Rodriguez heroism including the not included Mark Roberts paper. the issue here is not his heroism but his experience of that day. Jazz2006 had a better grip on this that the other editors.Sharphdmi (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The troll-guard/spam-guard should be reinstated on this page.

Obviously, it was necessary and useful, as evidenced by the recent spate of vandalism since it was lifted.

Alternatively, perhaps the page should be put up for deletion again.{Jazz2006 (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)}

I reiterate what I said back on November 28. This article has been bastardized beyond recognition and in violation of so many of the Wiki rules and guidelines that it has become utterly meaningless and useless. It seems pointless to waste time trying to make it accurate and meaningful when any idiot with an agenda can come along and edit it willy nilly without discussion, without providing verifiable sources, without truthful content, and without giving so much as even a wink and a nod to the Wiki rules and guidelines. Jazz2006 (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You should refrain of calling members that do not agree with your POV, idiots.Wtcsurvivor (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please point out where I called any particular member here an idiot. I am quite sure that I have not done so. My post was referring generically to "hit and run" idiots with agendas who sign up for the sole purpose of furthering their agendas, without bothering to familiarize themselves with the rules and guidelines of the site, and with total disregard for the rules and guidelines of the site. Do you not agree that such posts and such posters are a detriment to the integrity of Wikipedia as a legitimate resource? Jazz2006 (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit

I think this might be better summarized into a few (2-3) paragraphs. Alternatively, a much shorter list of bullet points. I'm not sure that a long list is suitable here. --Aude (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the list was actually so that the points could be easily verified at the source in light of the great length of the lawsuit. However, I agree that it is lengthy and will attempt to summarize it into a few paragraphs. {{Jazz2006 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)}}

I summarized it into a few short paragraphs. Recently, one particular anonymous spam artist seems to continue to vandalize this page, though, and the vandalism should probably be dealt with. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}

Can we move the RICO lawsuit before the 9/11 Commission block? was this going at the same time?Sharphdmi (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission issued its final report on July 22, 2004 and the Commission closed on August 31, 2004. Rodriguez first filed his lawsuit in Pennsylvania in October of 2004, so, no, they were not going on at the same time. It seems appropriate to keep the sections in chronological order, unless there is some compelling reason to move them out of chronological order. {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)}

WTC Janitor?

WTC Janitor may be technically a job description, but it belittles Rodriguez' actual position, whatever it was. I find it very odd that just a "Janitor" is arranging press conferences for the state governor. Just a "Janitor" is given master keys to the entire building? It would be more accurate to state Rodriguez' actual job title and then the biography would then follow the timeline from being just a "Janitor" to whatever position he actually held on 9/11/01.208.254.130.235 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it appears that his actual position was that of a janitor. That's what Rodriguez says himself, and that is the only job title that has ever been connected to him with regard to his work at the WTC. In one part of the article that I edited a long time ago, I used the word "custodian" rather than "janitor" but I don't think that his actual job description can "belittle" him. That was his job, after all, and there is nothing wrong with being a janitor - heck, the world would run a lot less smoothly without janitors. {Jazz2006 (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)}

Notability

I have tried doing some cleanup, removing uncited material, etc. But, I still think this article is highly problematic (see WP:BLP) with some material not cited with good, third-party, reliable sources. Many of the sources used here are self-referential to William Rodriguez's websites or other such sources. There are some good sources, but I'm concerned that enough good sources will turn up to really make this article work, get it neutral and adequately sourced. Since this article was created, Wikipedia's policies and attitude toward biographies of living persons have evolved. Wikipedia is less accepting of biographies with marginal notability, and particularly biographies of individuals notable only for one event (even if that event is 9/11). In short, I don't think this article belongs on Wikipedia and recommend it be put up for deletion, per WP:BLP. --Aude (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted that Kate in the past tried to do a biased editing. POV has been masked many times by LashL and Kryptos. Now you do not think this belong on Wikipedia based on the fact that Mr. Rodriguez has marginal notability? Do a search on google ounder William Rodriguez 9/11 and see the hundred of thousands of hits. Not to mention the huge popularity he has in many international countries. Mr. Rodriguez is not only notable for the event of 9/11 but also on working on behalf of the vicitms, first responders, on legislation and on other disaster events not related to 9/11. As noted on the article he has been recognised as a Latino leader and has worked un tirelessly for the immigrant community. Wikipedia has many people on their biographies that have not done as much as Mr. Rodriguez wether you like it or not. Call Telemundo Network in NY, Call Univision Network in New York or Miami, call TVE (Television Espanola) call El Diario. I have, and they have only respectful words for him. Wtcsurvivor (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. Stop making unfounded accusations against others, already. If you have any legitimate evidence in support of your repeated spam and vandalism, cough it up already and others will be pleased to look at it. All you have done so far is spam and vandalize this article without any legitimate supporting evidence whatsoever. Frankly speaking, I think that William Rodriguez is a blatant liar and fraud and I think that is only because of Wiki's very open parameters that he is even mentioned here at all. He certainly would not garner even a footnote in a legitimate, properly resourced encyclopedia. But you don't see me editing the article to say that, do you? That's because I stick to the rules even though I think the man is an obvious liar and fraud. You should similarly stick to the rules even if you disagree with parts of the article. Frankly, you should consider yourself fortunate that the article wasn't turfed long ago - as it would have been if Wikipedia standards were not so open to baseless speculation and self-serving nonsense such as that which you have contributed to date. It's spam and vandalism such as yours that lessens the credibility of Wiki as a whole. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}

I'm not saying he's not notable, but you've removed his initial story, and falsely claimed he speaks on "disaster management". He speaks on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The "22 floors" is completely unsourced. Some of your edits are improvements, although I fail to see why removing details of what he said, when sourced, is an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Falsely claimed he speaks on "disaster management"? Hmmm does posting articles in Spanish accepted in an English Biography? If not , please explain. Wtcsurvivor (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The man was a custodian who, by his own account, swept the stairs for a living. He is not in any way qualified to lecture anyone on "disaster management". Please, stop your nonsense already. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}

It is obvious your rage and hate, also obvious your BPOV for everybody to see. Also demeaning that because you are a lawyer and he is a custodian, he is not in a better position to lecture on Disaster Management. Again your hate is evident.If you have a problem with the article then have it removed completely. Are we asking you to remove your personal pages on the lawsuit and Pacer? In according to the rules, now that you mentioned it, may I point to you also that if you are a member of the JREF it is also a conflict of interest. Bias. My sources are there and you just want to eliminate them. Frankly speaking you complain of him garnering footnotes but you are one of the people recognising him as part of history for good or bad. Stop your nonsense.Wtcsurvivor (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I harbour no "rage" against anyone. Never have, never will. So, it's kind of silly for you to make such baseless accusations and more than silly for you to try it on as rhetoric.

Second, I harbour no "hatred" toward Rodriguez whatsoever, despite your very strange and unfounded accusations to the contrary.

Third: It appears quite obvious that you have serious issues that preclude you from being neutral and unbiased on the topic at hand.

Fourth: Please seek professional help. There is no shame in doing so.

Fifth: I make it a point not to engage with people who have serious psychiatric issues that preclude them from engaging in legitimate discussion, as doing so only seems to hurt them rather than help them. So, I will now bid you adieu, and wish you all the very best. I genuinely hope that your treatment is successful. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}

First, Idon't believe you on first.

Second, your hate is obvious and your point of view as well.

Third, I think you are talking about yourself here.

Fourth, If I ever need it I will get it gladly, sadly your sarcasm and poking fun on anybody that do not share your views shows how bad your ego and drive is in the middle. Since you think everybody is below you. Since you think that a "janitor" like Rodriguez is incapable of training for other professions. There is shame on your comments. Like in your practice. I hope I never need a lawyer like you.

Fifth: I wish you get your rage and hate back in control, maybe Anger Management will help. Arrivederci LashLWtcsurvivor (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"I make it a point not to engage with people who have serious psychiatric issues..." Like your past insults to people on wikipedia, calling them "idiots" remember? Wtcsurvivor (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Frankly, you should consider yourself fortunate that the article wasn't turfed long ago " Noted again your NPOV.Wtcsurvivor (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not the best word, but it's used on Wikipedia - see WP:NOTABILITY - to help guide decisions on what to include in Wikipedia. Willie Rodriguez is notable, but I think the level of notability is still marginal on the scale of things on Wikipedia. The standards for inclusion have changed as Wikipedia has matured, out of concerns for biographies of living persons. For such articles, we need to adhere to higher standards of sourcing, WP:NPOV, etc. However, this article falls well short of acceptable standards. These problems must be addressed. If they can't be, then deletion is an option of last resort. Removing sources, "citation needed" tags, and such edits are not acceptable. As well, comments above fall well short of Wikipedia's expectation that all editors remain civil, assume good faith, and adhere to acceptable standard of conduct. --Aude (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, using article in Spanish as a source is permitted. But we are less aware of what the unreliable sources are in Spanish; tabloids and press releases are just as unusable in Spanish as in English. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As for your latest addition, that he spoke at the Global Peace & Unity conference is sourced at that web site, although it wasn't easy to find. That he spoke twice, and who introduced him, doesn't seem to be available at the site. It may very well be accurate (I wasn't there), but we would need a source for that information. I'm not sure that entire section is notable, though. Perhaps the list of locations, but I've spoken at more math conferences than that, although only "invited" twice (there are "invited" talks and "contributed" talks) and there's little evidence that he spoke for more than 10 minutes at the Unity conference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed POV of edit warioress Jazz2006 who went on to try to indicate not related info from John Schroeder. She forgets the page is about Rodriguez like she said in the past , in reference to edits about lawyer Phil Berg. The source is a radio show and it is available on this page.

Re-added the sorced material of International Bureaus, a quick translation from those pages will indicate that he is doing speeches of motivation. at least for the companies mentioned in the Countries sourced.Wtcsurvivor (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It wasn't me who added anything about John Schroeder. I simply reverted the edits that you made to restore it the prior versions by Aude and Arthur Rubin. You really need to calm down, read carefully, and edit even more carefully. {Jazz2006 (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)}

Protected

Due to recent edit-warring, this page has been protected for a week. Please take the time to come to a consensus on what should and should not be included. You can continue editing once the protection expires; use {{editprotected}} here to request an urgent edit to the page, or make a post at WP:RFPU if you come to a consensus before the protection expires. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Key of Hope" ,saving 15 people and memorial

Could somebody add "Key of Hope", saving 15 people and memorial etc, if they know about this stuff. Chendy (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To date, there are no credible sources to support either Rodriguez's self-promulgated "key of hope" meme or his claims to have saved 15 people. Unless and until there are credible sources that support his claims, they are not encyclopedic material. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)]

Minor Edit- He stated on the CNN link provided "We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off." clearly establishing 2 events. we should not indicate it is a fireball since it creates a NPOV.Sharphdmi (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Verification tag

What's the tag for "verify probable copyright violation in link". I used {{verify credibility}}, but there may be a better one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Contacted the youtube poster and apparently it is copyright free since it is part of the PBS version of Italian TV and therefore people can freely use anything they have, but not comercially, like C-Span.69.116.203.23 (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I'm sure you'll understand, one anonymous person purportedly contacting another anonymous person about an anonymous posting on YouTube is not exactly encyclopedic material. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)}

I saw the video and they are indeed Randi and William. After checking Randi's book, Flim Flam (very good book!)I found mention of RTI- Radio Televisione Italiana doing a special with both of them. Cleanup a little, placed back word by Jazz2006 that was changed by Contrivance. I agree with Artur Rubin on the edits, also edited the part of David Lim since Rodriguez has an actual video of their encounter that was televised on Telemundo Network on his website. Also Youtube has a video of Lim and Rodriguez together on a CNN interview a year after on Ground Zero. Finally, I edited the mention of Contrivance that no future tours are announced. We do not need to spam or to publicize future events.Sharphdmi (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

YouTube and anonymous YouTube posters are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Also, having some anonymous YouTube poster tell you that something is "apparently" copyright-free is hardly sufficient to establish that as a fact. You'll need to provide a primary source that demonstrates it to be so, if it is to meet appropriate Wikipedia standards. Also, as for your references to Rodriguez and what he may or may not have in his personal possession, I don't think that he would be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards either, as he would not be unbiased, etc. Perhaps you should review WP:RS and WP:OR and then see if you can come up with appropriate third party, non-biased, reliable sources to support the edits that you wish to make. {Jazz2006 (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)}

That David Lim and Rodriguez had a televised encounter does not change the fact that Rodriguez' account names Lim five times and Lim's account doesn't name Rodriguez once. Contrivance (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, it does indeed. Wether we like it or not, the various TV interviews with both of them is a fact. As far as we know the passage you mention of Lim, is part of an excerpt of his appeareance at the 9/11 hearings, we do not and have no access to the full account of Mr. Lim. Once the Commission makes all the testimonies in full available, we will be able to judge more precisely. Is like putting Rodriguez fight with Roberts and Brian Good in a page. He did not addressed Mr. Roberts, therefore is a biased account, one sided. He did answered to Brian Good and Good declined to face him. If I put that in here it will be biased towards Rodriguez as well. So both accounts are not related, essential or connected even though it is the same theme. Feel free to open a new page on Mr. Roberts and I will do the same with Mr. Good but as wikipedia rules states, limited notoriety on a profile name, will be deleted. Sharphdmi (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? I don't understand what you were trying to say above. {Jazz2006 (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)}

Sorry Jazz2006, I am talking to Contrivance, referring to televised encounters with David Lim. Apologies for the misunderstanding.Sharphdmi (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not engaging in a personal, private discussion with Contrivance here on the Talk Page, though. This is a discussion page open to all editors here, Sharphdmi, and the purpose of the discussion page is to allow editors to discuss their proposed changes and to allow other editors to comment on those proposed changes. The idea is that on the discussion page, you will present your arguments in favour of your proposed changes, along with your evidence in support of those proposed changes, so that other editors can read them, look at your evidence, and comment meaningfully on your proposals, in hopes of coming to some kind of consensus. That's the Wikipedia model.

So, I will repeat, I'm sorry but what are you talking about? I don't understand what you were trying to say above.{Jazz2006 (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)}

I am not engaging in a personal, private discussion. Is all there. No need for you to get testy either. Read the whole thing and look at the edits from Contrivance and the reverts by Arthur Rubin to understand what I am trying to convey. If we are going to bring every unreliable, not scholarly or recognized sources, (like you did on the last edits) It will open the door for more garbage to be put in. Sharphdmi (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Testy? I'm not being testy. I just don't understand your previous post, as I said above. I am still not following you, after your subsequent post. And I shouldn't have to look at prior edits and your prior reverts to understand what you are trying to convey on the Talk page. Your posts should either stand alone or refer explicitly to sources that you are referring to. Your post, however, does neither, and it is still completely unclear what you were talking about above. So, let's try this again.

I asked you what the post of yours above was about, but you didn't actually answer. You wrote: "Wrong, it does indeed. Wether [sic] we like it or not, the various TV interviews with both of them is [sic] a fact. As far as we know the passage you mention of Lim, [sic] is part of an excerpt of his appeareance [sic] at the 9/11 hearings, we do not and have [sic] no access to the full account of Mr. Lim. Once the Commission makes all the testimonies in full available, we will be able to judge more precisely. Is like putting Rodriguez fight with Roberts and Brian Good in a page. [??] He did not addressed Mr. Roberts, [??] therefore is a biased account, one sided. [??] He did answered [sic] to Brian Good and Good declined to face him. [??] If I put that in here it will be biased towards Rodriguez as well. So both accounts [??] are not related, essential or connected even though it is the same theme. [??] Feel free to open a new page on Mr. Roberts [??] and I will do the same with Mr. Good [??] but as wikipedia rules states, [sic] limited notoriety on a profile name, will be deleted."

I still don't have any idea what you meant to convey in that post. It seems to be a hodgepodge without any sources, context, evidence, identification of the people to whom it refers, or meaning to anyone but yourself. Can you please break it down into whatever claims you are making and provide the necessary sources, context, evidence, and identification of the parties? I am puzzled, as it your post does not make any sense to me as written. Who are these people to whom you refer? Where is the evidence in support of your allegations? I just don't get it, as written, but if you provide the necessary context, perhaps it will all become clear. Who is Mr. Roberts - is that Mark Roberts? Who is Brian Good - never heard of him. Thanks in advance. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)}

The post was about the constant editing by Contrivance related to David Lim. He places Port Authority Police Officer David Lim testimony to imply that he never was with Rodriguez. In a Telemundo youtube reunion, they talk about their experience together. On a CNN interview, they appear together as well, talking about their experience. Since it has been mentioned here that youtube videos are not really acceptable, or frown upon then we need to clarify that also the testimony of Lim for the 9/11 commission is an excerpt as well from the whole day interview that he provided the Commission. I recall seeing a ( you guessed it) you tube interview of him about this. Lim is also part of the NY Times "102" minutes book. He also gave them several hours of interviews and part of it was used on the book. On an earlier edit Contrivance tried to post Mr.Mark Roberts paper and it was deleted by Arthur Rubin under the rules of Wiki. I mentioned that if we allow that then we allow Rodriguez confrontation with a guy from San Francisco named Brian Good, who attacked Rodriguez with the same arguments as Contrivance and the same links ( maybe the same person?). When Rodriguez challenged him to a public debate, Good refused and alleged that he just answer to Rodriguez via internet. Allegedly, Good opened a thread against Rodriguez on a website named Democratic Underground, under the name "petgoat" which later on was closed down by the admins. Rodriguez claimed that Brian Good was jealous and obsessed by a 9/11 truth activist named Carol Bruillet and have emails by her to proved it. Since this is all gossip and unreliable sources, I felt that if we allow one speculation, then it will be fair to allow another. Is it more understandable now? Well, I tried. Sorry again Jazz for the misunderstanding. I will try to be more clear later on.Sharphdmi (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought David Lim deserved some mention here because Rodriguez mentions him five times in his Los Angeles account. Interestingly, WR in claiming to be the "last survivor" and "last man" seems to forget that Lim was trapped in the rubble with 13 others for several hours after Rodriguez left. Contrivance (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Other events

Removed the comment of number of people present at his presentation. 1. wikipedia WP:RS 2. How do we know it was his "last presentation" ? as we can see, Rodriguez is always touring and may not update his website in a constant manner. 3. If we leave that, then the International Travels part that was edited with the attendance of 55,00 people should be restored as well to provide a balanced point of view. Sharphdmi (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference #36 shows that the last stop on the Last Man Out tour was Seattle. The reference to 55,000 people at the Global Unity Conference in the UK is inappropriate because there is no evidence that Rodriguez spoke to 55,000 people--he was one of dozens of speakers and artists at the conference.

The mention of David Lim is important to place in context Rodriguez' claim that he was "Last Man Out." Lim and 13 others were trapped in a stairwell for several hours after Rodriguez left the building. Contrivance (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

On an interview with Abovetopsecret.com, he clearly spells out that he was the last to exit the building, not the last to be found. Even though he clearly dispels those claims, under wiki {RS}, we will not use it either.I believe the reference of the 55,000 people was indeed verified by Islam Channel on an edit by (I believed) jazz2006 or Artur Rubin. Sharphdmi (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked reference #36 and none of the links works. They should be deleted. Also, contrivance may be referring to link #34, I checked Rodriguez's website and it does states he still on tour until the end of this year. Since neither of the two websites complies to wiki rules, those links should be eliminated. Maybe Arthur Rubin or Jazz2006 can check them out as well and come to a decision to leave them or remove them.Sharphdmi (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lim and the 12 FDNY people with him were not "found". They exited the stairwell under their own power. 55,000 attendees were claimed at the Global Unity Conference, but there's no indication that Rodriguez addressed them all. He was one of dozens of speakers and artists. There is no reference #36 or #34. I was referring to ref #32, which clearly shows that Seattle was the last stop on the west coast "Last Man Out" tour. The promoter's estimate that 50 people attended the Seattle presentation is important because it shows Rodriguez' dedication to his cause, that he undertakes these tours under severe economic constraints. 63.199.155.82

(talk) 04:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Lim crawled out with others after being trapped on the stairwells. I should have clarified that when Rodriguez says he was the last one to exit when the building was collapsing can also be seen as correct. A matter of semantics. Last Person to exit (out) when the building collapses is not the same as the last man out after the building "already" collapsed. So they are both right in their believes and statements. Not even counting Maclaughlin and his friends story as well ( Oliver Stone- WTC Movie). Global Unity Conference- He was indeed there as publicized by their website and may have or not stayed for the several days conference, but, as lucks has it, the 55,000 number is not only minimal since it was televised and probably reached millions of Muslims were Islam Channel Broadcasts. That is why He can reach maybe 50 in an event and millions on a televised presentation, to thousands on a specific event. That is why is inmaterial to place numbers of spectators. If he continues to tour, we cannot accurately number every presentation so let's stop spamming the amounts.Sharphdmi (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Rodriguez' claim that he is the "the last survivor pulled from the rubble" a matter of semantics? The numbers of attendees is important because it shows Rodriguez' devotion to the cause when his small audiences show that the tours don't pay. Lim is important because, since Rodriguez mentions Lim five times in his Los Angeles account, Lim's failure to corroborate Rodriguez' story (including the claimed 22-story collapse) is significant. Contrivance (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire section is ridiculous and should be deleted. It has no reliable sources; it is not at all encyclopedic in nature; and it is obviously the result of WillyRod or a close friend or follower of his trying to manipulate the article - it violates several Wiki rules, as a result. I will get around to deleting it in the next few days (crazy busy at work at the moment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz2006 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez' Self-Descriptions

I don't see why Rodriguez's self descriptions are irrelevant. Since Rodriguez' public image is largely self-created, his self-characterizations as "Last Survivor" and "Last Man Out" and his identification with the Master Key are essential, not mere advertising. The claim was made that this info was unsourced. It wasn't. Contrivance (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez himself debunked that notion on interviews. He claimed to believe that in the begining and pointed to that error himself. See abovetopsecret.com interview or Thepowerhour.com radio interview as part of his statement. If we are going to point an earlier believe and not a subsequent correction, then we fall on the NPOV rules and that is eaxctly what you have done. We already pointed out what "Last Man Out" can be interpreted as, is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharphdmi (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If Rodriguez debunked the "Last Survivor" label, why does he feature it on his websites? Why did he use "Last Man Out" as the title of his DVD and his UK and West Coast tours? Contrivance (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because he apparently and honestly believes that he is the last one to leave the towers when they were collapsing. Here is the interview: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread322234/pg1# .Sharphdmi (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer about the "Last Survivor" label, which he invoked in testimony before NIST, and which appears on his web pages. Does he honestly believe he was the last survivor of the WTC? And is abovetopsecret.com regarded as a creditworthy site in wikipedia? Contrivance (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I do not have to answer anything because that is the task of Mr. Rodriguez. I pointed to his interview and wether it is a reliable source or not, I am not using it on the table of references as you may see for yourself. I offered it here, because it is his interview, his voice and his statements to dispel many of the misunderstandings. Is up to you, me and anybody else to have a fair, balanced and neutral point of view. If I don't like the guy, it does not means that I will speculate or use only old statements or believes if he has retracted or corrected them.Sharphdmi (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez's self-descriptions may certainly be relevant when what he says is demonstrably false. Which is most of the time. But his self-descriptions are non-encyclopedic, which is the problem. Frankly, Rodriguez appears to be nothing more than a self-promoting liar, so although it is tempting to point out his lies via his own multiple bogus websites, none of them are worthy of encyclopedic treatment, thus the dilemma. In light of his numerous bogus websites and the lack of corroboration for his numerous claims, it might just be better for Wiki to delete the article entirely. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)}

Maybe we should put the page for deletion as suggested by jazz200669.116.203.23 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)}

Sharpdhmis' suggestion that it is Mr. Rodriguez' task to answer for the failure of Sharpdhmi to respond to questions about Sharpdhmi's editing is absurd. Mr. Rodriguez has not retracted the "Last Survivor" statement. It appeared on his website recently. I would oppose deletion of the Rodriguez page because he's an important part of the history of the 9/11 Truth movement--far more important than many of the other people who are listed as participants in the 9/11 Truth movement. Contrivance (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Contrivance believe that Rodiguez's profile is "far more important" than the other conspiracy believers is ridiculous. How does he measures that? I believe that all those conspiracy theorists are all in the same BS group we equal "guilt". Looking through your edits on the Kevin Barrett page and elsewhere, we can determine that you are part of that group but that you strongly disagree with Rodriguez. You can oppose as much as you want any request for deletion. Is up to the concensus and wikipedia that the decision is made. Sharphdmi (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does Sharpdhmi get the impression that I (Contrivance) disagree with Rodriguez? Rodriguez' importance to the 9/11 Truth movement is understated by Sharpdhmi. The Christian Science Monitor credited Rodriguez with being "A Key Force Behind the 9/11 Commission" and The Herald (Glasgow), Scotland's widest circulated broadsheet newspaper, declared that Rodriguez had "become the poster boy for a movement currently sweeping the globe.... the 9/11 Truth Campaign." Rodriguez' story is essential to the story of the 9/11 Truth movement. Contrivance (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So what is it? Do you agree or disagree? Please clarify. The Christian Science Monitor article refers to his work as a family activist. Read it again. The Herald Glasgow article states:"Partly because he was an eye-witness to the day's events, Rodriguez's testimony plays a key role in giving credence to the allegations of the 9/11 Truth campaign". He did not claim he was a leading part. I believe the only people claiming that they are the superstars of this movement are Alex Jones who in the past claimed to be the father of the movement. The Loose Change kids, who boast of their influence and the millions they have reached with their film, etc. I will rank Rodriguez in a different category due to his involvement with other issues related to families, victims and first responders.~~~~

NPOV dictates that I neither agree nor disagree with Rodriguez. Let Sharphdmi support her allegations that I disagree. That Rodriguez does not claim to be a 9/11 leader does not change the fact that the CSM and the Herald said he was. There is little evidence of Rodriguez' work for families, victims and first responders in this article, and if there is any evidence for it, I'd like to see it. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrivance (talk • contribs) 07:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sharpdhmi is not likely to support his allegations, just as he hasn't done in the past in his previous incarnations. {~~~~}

I have noticed that some editors are not responsive to questions. I attribute this to language challenges. Contrivance (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

A distinction needs to be made here between the usual standards for encyclopedic-quality sources for facts, and the need to cite non-encyclopedic-quality sources to tell the story of William Rodriguez within the 9/11 Truth movement.

Examples of important sources for the latter issue include Mark Roberts' paper about Rodriguez, Dr. Barrett's press releases, and promotional websites for Rodriguez's tours. Roberts' attack on Rodriguez was an important event in Rodriguez' hero career, regardless of its factual veracity. Thus reporting it and citing it are an important part of the story. Barrett's press releases can be taken as a model of the kind of press releases that 9/11 activists put out to support Rodriguez's tour--and thus they are important evidence even if they are not totally credible as to the facts. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrivance (talk • contribs) 07:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett is not a reliable source. We already went trough the Mark Roberts issue with the example of Brian Good as a balancing act. Important by whose standards? again, not reliable. I do not make the rules, wiki does. Honestly Contrivance, do you believe any of this CT storys? a simple yes or no will clarify a lot to us. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharphdmi (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that Kevin Barrett is a VERY reliable source on the subject of press releases issued by 9/11 activists in support of Rodriguez' tours. Whether the press releases are accurate or not is another issue. How does Brian Good balance Mark Roberts? Thanks for the hint about the petgoat material on Rodriguez at DemocraticUnderground. Interesting stuff! Rodriguez is an important 9/11 Truther by the standards of the Christian Science Monitor and the Herald of Glasgow, as pointed out above. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrivance (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And our point is that Kevin Barrett is not a reliable source. Good that you had the oportunity to check the other 2 info. None of it goes here since is based on speculation, gossip mongering and alledged personal attacks from all sides. Again, we will have to format your conection to the Christian Science Monitor piece because it does not reflect his involvement to the 9/11 truth movement. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharphdmi (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is Barrett not a reliable source on the subject of his own press releases issued in connection with Rodriguez's midwest tours? Is Barrett speculating when he writes: "Rodriguez, the last man out of the North Tower, rescued more than ten people with his own hands, and saved hundreds of lives by using his master key—the only one available—to open stairwell doors for fire department rescue crews." Your claim that Rodriguez' involvement in the Truth movement is not reflected in the CSM article is absurd. It says: "Mr. Rodriguez is convinced that much of what happened that day is still behind locked doors, and the only way to open them is to keep hurling questions at officials until they get answers," and it goes on to quote 9/11 Truthers Kyle Hence, Mindy Kleinberg, Lori Van Auken, and Kristen Breitweiser. And what do you mean "We will have to format your connection?" ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrivance (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia rules on reliable sources. The CSM article, does not mentions his involvement. Most of the families had the same sentiment as Mr. Rodriguez, this does not make them part of the Truth Movement. He may have joined posterior to that but the article does not mentions it. Hey, I also new there were many questions at the time and I shared the families push for transparency but that does not makes me part of this disoriented movement. Quoting other people also does not necesarily means they all belong to the same group but that they also question the government story. If you can find quotes from Mindy kleinberg, Lori Van Auken and Kristen Breitweiser that says that they are part of the 9/11 truth movement, or represent it or believe that it was an inside job do please present them here. It will be great to see the clarification. The second article ( Glasgow) does indeed puts William on that category but does not claims this is William's assertion. It is the view of the journalist. If you want to quote items to reflect your views, you have to do better than that.~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharphdmi (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The right side of the page lists all the people and organizations that are in the Wikipedia series on the 9/11 Truth movement. The Jersey Girls are listed there, as is Rodriguez. Why are you trying to claim Rodriguez is not in the Truth movement? Note his participation in the Rodriguez v. Bush lawsuit. Look at the claims in it of pods under the aircraft wings, its naming of Bush as a defendant. How can you possibly deny that Rodriguez was part of the 9/11 Truth movement? Was he not part of the movement when he was being introduced by Alex Jones in L.A. at a symposium attended by Dr. Jones and Dr. Fetzer? Was he not part of it when he was traveling around the midwest with Dr. Barrett? You're not making any sense. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrivance (talk • contribs) 04:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I never claimed he is not part of the CT movement. We disagreed on when he became part of it. Also the RICO lawsuit was much after the CSM article. I have tried to clarify to you that Rodriguez is indeed part of this idiotic movement but not as of when you claim it to be. The article from CSM is not claiming that. You are putting more importance into this guy than any other member of the movement. See the Alex Jones page and it does have the same flags of info like Rodriguez. On the RICO issue I already gave you his views on the interview he made for Abovetopsecret.com but you refused to see it. You are not making sense either. There is a hero from 9/11 named John Feal who is the founder of the fealgood foundation. He goes all over the nation to events sponsored by this "movement". Does this make him part of it?~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharphdmi (talk • contribs) 04:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If Mr. Feal alleges, as Rodriguez did in his quote in the CSM article, that the government is covering up secrets about 9/11, then he is part of the Truth movement. If he does not make such allegations, then he is strictly an activist supporting the sick first responders. Your restoration of the claim that Rodriguez helped found many victims groups is inappropriate. The reliability of the source was not the issue. The issue was that the article did not support the claim. ~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrivance (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

and the issue was clarified and also references were quoted on his relations with family groups and membership in several organisations.~~~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharphdmi (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Sharphdmi and Contrivance.

Between the two of you, you have made more than 50 edits to this article in the span of a couple of days. This is lunacy unless you are both aiming for having the article put up for deletion - which it deserves, frankly. {~~~~} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz2006 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How does one revert to a prior version to bypass 50+ warring edits?

This is just nuts. The article needs to revert to the version prior to the edit-wars of these two participants. But I don't know how to revert to a particular version without going through all 50+ edits in the interim, which is just a waste of time.

Assistance, please.

Note - I originally posted the above but my post was edited and my signature was deleted by the poster previously known as Sharphdmi as part of his post below, so I am inserting this here in order to make it clear that what follows below are the words of the "poster previously known as Sharphdmi", not mine. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

It is obvious that contrivance is trying hard to attack WR. Latest edit refers of him being unable to save people on the elevators. If he insist with the edit then I will add this whole blocke so people will see clearly what he refers to. Rodriguez clearly states with pain,"As we go up—one thing that people don’t talk about is that… and it breaks my heart [long pause]… is the amount of screams that I heard of people stuck inside the elevators—that we were not able to help. People screaming for help. You ask me what is the biggest nightmare I have—I have two, and that’s probably… the one that I recall almost every day. Every time that I go into an elevator—if I go up to my room over here—it’s just in my mind; listening to those people screaming for help. And it breaks your heart—it really does. Those people never had a chance."

1. He was helping other firemen he "had no tools" or knowledge on what to do. Why did the other firemen did not do anything either? Simple, a rescue effort was concentrated in helping the people at hand. 2. Once on the lobby, he was sent to get an abulance ready. 3. He clearly states that he told David Lim he was coming back. 4. He was buried when the collapsed happened. It is sad that you try every possible way to destroy him when his heroism for the day is not in question, but his believes of what happened on that day. It is ofensive not only to wikipedians but to the victims as well.Sharphdmi (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking and reading further, it does not even tells you what kind of effort was done. It is vague. Being unable to help them does not mean they did not try to help them. Sending email to firefighter to clarify this and will keep all posted on answers.Sharphdmi (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Your email to Mr. Schroeder is original research, which, as I have told you many times, is not permitted under wiki rules. You seem to be rather emotional in advancing your opinions about Mr. Rodriguez's heroism. Why is this? Did he rescue you? Your husband? How am I attacking Mr. Rodriguez? Is asking for evidence and questioning inconsistencies in his accounts an attack? Contrivance (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are not asking questions you are taking elements of articles and twisting them around to portray questionable character and that is NPOV. He did not have to save me or my loved ones for me to try to understand the situation on that horrible day. The human condition and the actions taken.Sharphdmi (talk) 08:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC) I ask people involved so they can direct me to get the right information, that is called research and it is not quoted on the page as you tried to do with Schroeder in the past and were stopped by others. Do you remember that? Funny that you quoted him before, sad sad sad. Do you enjoy poking at people who suffered on 9/11? I don't.Sharphdmi (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I quoted Mr. Schroeder because it seemed to be an important part of the WR story. It seems to connect to why WR was cut out of the final cut of the Loose Change movie. Mr. Schroeder claimed that WR rescued him and 12 other FDNY people. Contrivance (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

you see, and that was the first "bulllshit" we noticed from you. Second "BS", He was not cut from the movie because of Schroeder. Third "BS", the one about the books and movie deals. He did say that years ago but, he indeed wrote a book in Spanish with an expert of terrorism from Colombia and former Lt. Coronel of the Armed Forces of Colombia and the edition sold out inmediately. I did not want to point those errors since I thought you were going to correct them. I was wrong! I may put that in the page though.Sharphdmi (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Note this part of the discussion page can be accessed only from the edit screen and does not appear on the display screen. The problem begins after Contrivance post above at 05:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My statement that Mr. Schroeder claimed WR rescued him was not bullshit. Mr. Schroeder did make that claim. I am not aware that Mr. Rodriguez has ever denied it. If you know why WR was cut out of the Loose Change Final Cut movie, please enlighten us. I am not aware that Mr. Rodriguez has ever provided any evidence supporting his claims that he turned down million dollar book and movie deals. Contrivance (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There you go for "original research". Does he has to give you an explanation of deals? how about tax returns? how about bank statements? how about SSI information? How about Federal Compensation Fund info? How about MRA Fema program benefits for the victims? How about Red Cross, Salvation Army, Catholic charities, United Way, and the other dozen of non -for-profit organizations help to victims? How about the Crime Victims Board benefits for the victims of crime? How about also phone statements from conversations of those offers? You are getting desperate here.Sharphdmi (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not desperate in the least. I pointed out that WR has claimed that he turned movie deals worth millions, and book deals, but he has never provided any specifics on these. WR has a pattern number of making claims without providing details or corroboration--for instance, the claim that he single-handedly rescued fifteen persons and saved hundreds. Contrivance (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pattern? HA! is up ot us to get the info since it is not provided on the speech. The only thing you have to go by. If I am offered a deal, I do not have to tell you who made thqat offer, only that I was offered the money. unless of course, you are sueing me, then I may tell you and even then, I find very difficult to believe any court will compelled me to do it unless it is related to the lawsuit. Try and sue him, it may work. Loose Change movie? very simple, read the information that was out there in the loose change forum, it may be deleted by now but it was very interesting! For my part, I am glad he did not appear.69.116.203.23 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt any deals, looking at his webpage photos, the amount of famous people and important political figures around the world he has met, there is no doubt that contacts are made and offers may follow. He does not have to validate every word since it will be a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnggggggg speech. Sharphdmi (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, Sharp. You think that since Rodriguez can get his picture taken with celebs, that means he's turned down movie deals and book deals? I seem to miss a logical step there. How does a long speech exempt one from sticking to the truth? Interesting concept. Contrivance (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, Good. You are the one claiming his old speech about turning out deals. After countless of presentations, you are basing your views on one single speech given several years ago. Not smart. You were the one pushing this "turn down deals" sections, nobody else, and I have seen there are several books in other languages with his story. In spanish and in Italian. Several offers may have come and he may have turned it down. That he has appeal to those celebrities is what bothers you? Apparently you just want to pick on every little piece of crap that you see fit.You seem to miss many steps here.Sharphdmi (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lancashire Telegraph quotes Mr. Rodriguez in an article dated July 7, 2007: "I was offered millions of dollars from Hollywood and deal after deal from every publishing company but I stayed away from that. I wanted to maintain my integrity." http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/1527870.0/ He made the same claim in the LA presentation in 2006. This is not ancient history. Contrivance (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? He has received and he may havo not accepted. Does that stops him to take any offers in the future if they are honest with HIS story? You apparently do not see the point here. Your insistence does not make any sense.69.116.203.23 (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Where in the report is mentioned that they interviewed more than 1200 people? I cannot find it. Also, where is the list of all the people that were interviewed? If not found then the statement has no validity.69.116.203.23 (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

~~~~

The problem began AFTER the Contrivance post, with the subsequent post. The Contrivance post displayed normally. Contrivance (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN Quote Saying WR climbed to "upper levels" is highly misleading. He only climbed to 39

The statement is an error. Including it in this article is a mistake. Contrivance (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a matter of interpretation. We have been trough this many times before and you still insist. There is no group agreement with you. No concensus. The item stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.203.23 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I bet I can find errors in almost every link you have provided in the entire article, should I eliminate the whole line because an error?69.116.203.23 (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You insist on featuring a misleading statement. It says WR climbed to "upper levels". He did not climb to upper levels. He only climbed to 39. Why are you featuring a misleading quote? How does it improve the article? Why are you trying to provide arguments for introducing errors in the article? Contrivance (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It clearly states that it is a comment from CNN. It is clear that he talks about the basement and the upper floor were the ones above him.Sharphdmi (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The context of "basement" v. "upper floor" is not present in the isolated quote. By taking the quote out of context, you and 69.116 are creating an impression that is not true. Someone reading the quote will think that WR climbed to the upper floors. Don't you care about truth?

You have restored ungrammatical and untrue material, and you have taken out important material from good sources. Why?

Also, your changing of the wording on the 15 rescues claim is not true. The source for that claim was WR's lawsuit. He does claim 15 rescues. "Widely believed" is not appropriate there. Contrivance (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed totally with you, it is widely believed by everybody, except you.Sharphdmi (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The sentence applies to the Rodriguez v. Bush lawsuit. The lawsuit does not allege that it is widely believed that WR rescued 15 persons. The lawsuit alleges that WR rescued fifteen persons. Therefore the stronger and more accurate word "claims" is appropriate to a sentence about the lawsuit.

The distinction between "it is widely believed" is appropriate to sentences about WR's claims when the source material does not provide evidence that these claims are true, but only cites the fact that he is "credited" with saving many lives.Contrivance (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what you have been doing. Picking and choosing to your believe what is credited and widely believed.69.116.203.23 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be noted that WR stated (personal correspondance) that he attempted to withdraw from the lawsuit after he read it (or had it translated into Spanish). If that's accurate, and can be sourced, then any claims in the lawsuit should not be treated as his views. The correct phasing becomes "it is claimed" rather than "Rodriguez claimed". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the fifteen (15) rescues were claimed prominently on WR's website. It's his claim. Contrivance (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of Page

Let it be noted that the wrong version was left there after blocking and admin was contacted. Response from User:Lifebaka says: "Yes, I'm well aware I protected The Wrong Version(tm), so don't worry about that. I won't be fixing it. Cheers."Sharphdmi (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's an essay about it. meta:The Wrong Version. I'm not a part of this dispute, and it's not my job to protecting any version except The Wrong Version ™. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL - that's pretty hilarious, actually. Thanks for the chuckles. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

So the page should be put for deletion as the mayority agreed in the past. Either that or should be unblocked. Thanks.Sharphdmi (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another poster pointed out to me that my post which had previously been located here somehow got lost in an edit conflict that had nothing to do with me, and that poster was quite helpfully able to locate my prior post, so in the interests of completeness, although I have subsequently this point below, I am reproducing my original post that got lost in its original form and in its original location here. Here it is: "It would be helpful if you (Sharphdmi) and Contrivance, Celeronel, and 96.234.98.107 put as much effort into learning how to use colons in front of your posts on talk pages in order to make the discussion clear, as you do into edit-warring for months on end. It is simple, really. If you are responding to an initial post, you type one colon in front of your post so that it shows up indented and clearly as a response to that particular post. Then, if someone responds to that, they type two colons, which indents it further and shows precisely what post they are responding to, and so on. Then use the "preview" function to make sure that you haven't deleted other posters' names and tags (because you have done this repeatedly, Sharphdmi, and I think that Contrivance has as well). Thanks in advance for taking the few seconds required to make your posts intelligible." {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

Not the creation of the 9/11 truth movement. No mention of him related to that on your article. The Herald article was an obvious point of view of the writter and anybody can see trough that. There are also errors on that article about his story.Celeronel (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What's not the creation of the 9/11 Truth movement? What's the objectionable point of view in the Herald article? Isn't it something of the nature of a program review--like the review of a concert or a play? How is it wrong to point out that WR provides no evidence to support his claims? Isn't that what a journalist should do? What are the errors in that article? Contrivance (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor called him "a key force" behind the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

What in particular do you object to in the current version? It leaves out almost everything you've objected to in the past--mention of David Lim, mention of David Shayler and Annie Machon, mention of John Schroeder, mention of Ed Beyea, mention of the claims about the 22-story collapse, mention of Kevin Barrett, description of the claims of explosive boom!s, mention of the claim that he was "Last Man Out," mention of the trip to Venezuela, mention of his close relationship with his benefactor Jimmie Walter, mention of his branding as the "keymaster," mention of the Herald's point that the only evidence for his claims was his own testimony, mention of the disappointing turnout at the last show on the west coast tour, mention of his many TV appearances in which he repeatedly claimed to have saved hundreds and implied that he did so because they were trapped behind locked exit doors. Contrivance (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote for deletion also. Also the blocked version is wrong and displays personal point of view of editor Contrivance.96.234.98.107 (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I also vote for deletion, Contrivance had tried every possible way to disrupt this page. Also, it is a ridiculous version on the article, it should be reverted.Celeronel (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree for deletion69.116.203.23 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Do any of you have reasons for your opinions, or do you just have opinions? What exactly is wrong about the blocked version? What personal point of view is displayed? How exactly have I "disrupted" the page? Is removing misleading out-of-context quotes disruptive? Do any of you ever answer questions? Contrivance (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone creates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rodriguez, I'll add the AfD tag to the article. If anyone wishes this article to be deleted, please do so. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Rodriguez is a notable and important person in the 9/11 Truth movement. The Christian Science Monitor called him "a key force" behind the creation of the 9/11 Commission. The Herald of Glasgow called him "the poster boy" for the 9/11 Truth movement. He has had an enormous effect on the movement, he has appeared on the Cristina show before 21 million viewers, and he is probably more well known as an ambassador of 9/11 Truth than almost anyone else on the list of 9/11 Truth figures, including Dr. Steven Jones and Dr. David Ray Griffin. He is therefore a notable figure. Contrivance (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Mr. Rodriguez is not, and has never been, in the 9/11 Truth movement. He's been used by the 9/11 Truth movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that Rodriguez has "used" the Truth Movement as much as the Truth Movement has "used" him. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

I agree with Mr. Rubin.Sharphdmi (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimmie Walter spent $3 million on newspaper ads and TV ads promoting his version of 9/11 Truth before December 2004, according to wikipedia. In 2005, he sponsored european speaking tours for William Rodriguez, and WR's lawyer Phil Berg. Berg had already achieved recognition in the 9/11 Truth movement by attending 9/11 conferences and representing 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani in a lawsuit alleging 9/11 complicity by George Bush. When Mariani dropped out of the suit, Rodriguez stepped in and became the new plaintiff. The website for the lawsuit is called "911forthetruth," and features on its front page a congratulatory letter from 9/11 Truth icon Dr. David Ray Griffin saying the Berg lawsuit might be the most effective way to expose the "falsity of the 9/11 Commission Report." It also discusses a Zogby poll for which Mr. Walter paid that found that half (49.3%) of New Yorkers believe U.S. leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and "Consciously Failed" to act.

Whatever Jimmy spent, it was his money, but you are wrong in saying he sponsored tours for them, this is inacurate. Walter invited them as part of a bigger group to give speeches, very different. Rodriguez broke and fired Brg. Here , this is for you from this week so you will have a better understanding of the Berg- rodriguez relationship, the website you mention which Rodriguez called to be pulled down...http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/berg-v-obama-update-monday-august-25.html SO I agree with Mr. Arthur Rubin.Sharphdmi (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In 2006 Rodriguez appeared in Los Angeles at the "American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda" along with Fetzer, Steven Jones, Tarpley, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Bowman, and other 9/11 activists. This was billed as "the biggest ever 9/11 conference."

If you invite me to an event and it has Schoolars all over it, I wil go as well.Sharphdmi (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In 2007 Rodriguez made two tours with 9/11 activist Kevin Barrett. His "Last Man Out" tour was sponsored by groups such as the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, the Oregon Truth Alliance, 911truthgroups.org, the Seattle 9/11 Visibility Project. His ties to the Truth movement can not be denied. Contrivance (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That he gets invited by this groups does not precludes him to be invited by other groups as well. Evidence was offered here about his speaking tours not related to 9/11 Truth movement and it was deleted. Also information about his other work with the victims was also deleted. Pick and choose.Sharphdmi (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How funny, you go mentioning his appeareance on the Cristina Show ( not 21 million- more than tripple that amount). But have never even bothered to find his interview or have you seen it? He was a guest 5 days after 9/11 and his testimony was the same as of today. That is why your line of "dramatic change of his testimony years after" is not accurate. Also, I thought that the poster boys of 9/11 truth were the Loose Change guys and/ or Alex Jones. A quick check on google will show that. Here: http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=poster+boys+for+the+9/11+truth+movement&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Sharphdmi (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is rather interesting that those who buy into Rodriguez's BS the most are the ones most anxious to see his page deleted. It appears that they have belatedly realized that having his inconsistencies, his conspiracy fantasies, his BS lawsuit, and his wholly unsupported and unfounded assertions exposed on wikipedia is not exactly helpful to him. Interesting, indeed. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

Is interesting also that you were the first one to call for deletion. Go back on history and you will find your name there not once but several times asking for this. Either unblock it or delete it. His latest conspiracy was mentioned on a radio show in Spanish, is a new lawsuit against the City of Hamilton in Canada and a worker for that city. Let's wait until papers are filed to see his allegations. Sharphdmi (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you not take a few seconds to insert the appropriate number of colons in front of your posts on talk threads to make the discussion comprehensible and easily readable? It is very simple, and given that you seem to spend all of your waking moments here, it seems a very small thing to ask that you at least TRY to post in keeping with the rules and in a manner that makes the thread coherent.

I'm not sure if I was the first to suggest the page should be deleted (if memory serves, I think it was actually nominated for deletion a long time ago, but that was before I was posting here), but I certainly did suggest that it be deleted about a year ago when it was such a horrible mess and the victim of so many vandals that it had to be locked for a while. Now, however, I am leaning more toward the view that Rodriguez's inconsistencies, conspiracy fantasies, BS lawsuit, and unsupported accusations, allegations and assertions deserve to be exposed for what they are. He sought to gain notoriety for himself via wikipedia (particularly by use of several sockpuppet accounts, for instance), after all, so it seems somehow fitting that the truth be exposed via wikipedia. I might change my mind if I see compelling arguments in favour of deletion, of course. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

Oh, and hey, if Rodriguez has another lawsuit in the works, that's even more reason NOT to delete the article. Who would want to miss out on that? {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

HA, agree on that. It will be interesting to see who is who there.Sharphdmi (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you do it for me? you are such an expert editing, I must learn to be like you. Apparently you were spending the same amount of time in the past here as well. Just checking your past time stamps shows that you were just as intense but have calmed down. You are not sure about asking for deletion? just go back in history and you will find out. I am asking for it to be unblocked if not then to be deleted. Now, you implied that Rodriguez was the one starting his own page, or editing it, can you provide your evidence to that? I will love to see it and so many of the people here for and against him.Sharphdmi (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is only common courtesy to abide by the wiki rules and guidelines. You should at least make an attempt to do so in the interests of the site. FYI, I posted something earlier about the lack of compliance with this very simple formatting rules for talk pages, and mentioned that you, Celeronel, Contrivance, 69.116.203.23, and others on this particular page should take the few seconds that it requires to post properly in this regard, and I explained how it works, but apparently my post got lost in an edit conflict, as someone has advised me via my talk page. So, I will explain it again. When you are replying to another editor on a talk page, you use colons to indent so that it is clear what post you are responding to, and so that the forum software automatically indents for ease of reading. You will see, for instance, that this post is indented from your post to which I am responding. This is because I used one colon in front of the text. If you are to reply to this post, you should use two colons in front of your text, and that will indent it further so that it is obvious to anyone reading which post you are responding to. I will show you how this works by ending this post now and replying to my own post below. {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

See, for this post, I typed two colons in front of the text, and you will note how it further indented the post so that everyone can easily follow the conversation. Got it now? I hope this helps. (Oh, and as to the rest of your post, it is close to complete nonsense. You should work on your reading comprehension skills. For the record, though, no I did not suggest that Rodriguez started the article about himself as I have no idea whether he did or not - he may have, for all I know, but I wasn't around here then. It does, however, certainly seem to me that Rodriguez edits here and has done so with a number of sockpuppets over the past year or so. That's just my opinion, of course, but I don't really care how much Rodriguez edits or how many sockpuppets Rodriguez uses. Particularly since I am in the "do not delete" camp at present.){Jazz2006 (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

Got it. So we are clear it is your opinion since you have no evidence. Pardon me but I don't know what sockpuppets are but will google it.Sharphdmi (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see: I specifically wrote, "That's just my opinion, of course, but I don't really care how much Rodriguez edits or how many sockpuppets Rodriguez uses" - so it should have been pretty obvious, even to you, that this is my opinion. Since I specifically said so and all. Do you need me to repeat it again? If so, here you go: "That's just my opinion, of course, but I don't really care how much Rodriguez edits or how many sockpuppets Rodriguez uses." Is that clear enough for you yet? Nice touch with the feigned ignorance of sockpuppets, though. I laughed.  :) {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

For the record, this is from Jazz2006:Alternatively, perhaps the page should be put up for deletion again.{Jazz2006 (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)} and this:..."Frankly, you should consider yourself fortunate that the article wasn't turfed long ago". Also by Jazz2006. Here as well: In light of his numerous bogus websites and the lack of corroboration for his numerous claims, it might just be better for Wiki to delete the article entirely. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)}, and this:Maybe we should put the page for deletion as suggested by jazz200669.116.203.23 (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Not a bad idea. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)}, and this one:Between the two of you, you have made more than 50 edits to this article in the span of a couple of days. This is lunacy unless you are both aiming for having the article put up for deletion - which it deserves, frankly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz2006 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Very hypocrital I must say.Sharphdmi (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I was in favour of deletion previously and I am not currently. And, guess what? It isn't up to me. You really should familiarize yourself with the wikipedia rules and guidelines instead of dedicating your life to disrupting this one article. Doing so might improve your contributions significantly. Oh, and thanks for that reference to the page being up for deletion previously (prior to my participation) as I indicated above that I thought that was the case. {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

You are not reading well, as I can see. The Person with more request for deletion was YOU.Sharphdmi (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you appear to lack reading comprehension skills. Perhaps you need to read more slowly, or perhaps you need to comprehend how to read the history of the article, but either way, you really need to stop misrepresenting others. Once again: the page was up for deletion long before I was even a member here. This is readily verifiable and I suggest that you take a break from your non-stop attempted attacks on others to learn how wikipedia works if you are going to continue to edit and post here because it does your credibility no good when you make false allegations against other editors, and it does you no good when you demonstrate repeatedly your own failure to read or comprehend the wikipedia rules and guidelines. Now, as I said above, I am in favour of retaining the article because it demonstrates Rodriguez's inconsistencies, conspiracy fantasies, BS lawsuit, and unsupported accusations, allegations and assertions, which deserve to be exposed for what they are. Is there anything else that I've said which you fail to understand? If so, please advise and I will attempt to explain the obvious to you yet again. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

Apparently the person with the lack of understanding is you here. The page was not for deletion, you asked for it, see the revision history and your posts. Pretty clear I must say. About everything else, again it is your point of view like you said before. I did google you sockpuppets bs and no need to be sarcastic, I did not know. Now since you still insinuate that Rodriguez is editing Icannot expect anything more than your mind reading act to work for me as well. Kreskin has nothing on you as I can see.Sharphdmi (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you are wrong. You really should try harder. I'm not going to be bothered with your nonsensical posts any further. If and when you have something of substance and/or relevance to say, set up your wikipedia user talk page and then drop me a note. Until then, don't bother. It is boring and time-wasting to read your nonsensical and uninformed posts that do not comply with the wiki rules and guidelines. You may as well be posting on a tinhat conspiracy forum instead of wiki, and wiki doesn't need to be and won't be dragged down to that level to which you are, apparently, accustomed. You really should read the wiki rules and guidelines and you should attempt to adhere to those rules and guidelines if you expect others to spend their valuable time on your fluff and nonsense. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)}

I don't need to bother with you either. I never did, you are the one that came to me. Do you think that you can post here like you do on JREF as well? I have read the rules and you have no civility whatsoever. Keep your valuable time working in a real job, legal job like you do. You see I can read minds like you too! I finsih my conversation with you as well. Learn some manners next time, you lack them here like you do at JREF as well.Sharphdmi (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, your post makes no sense and does not conform to the rules and guidelines of wikipedia. Either you are completely incapable of reading and comprehending the history of the article or you are deliberately making up lies out of wholecloth. My money is on the latter, in light of your editing here. Anyone with even a modicum of reading comprehension and even a modicum of knowledge about how to read the history of wikipedia articles can easily determine completely conclusively that your accusations are entirely unfounded. You are simply wrong when you claim that I was the editor who first put the Rodriguez page up for deletion. That happened long before I had even posted here. The history is there - go look it up for a change instead of making repeated baseless accusations. As I said above, it is boring and time-wasting to read your nonsensical and uninformed posts that do not comply with the wiki rules and guidelines. But when you deliberately and repeatedly make false accusations against other editors that are so easily proven to be false, you should not be surprised if your posts and edits are viewed more and more as nothing but troll activity. Also, when you are editing on the discussion page, you really should stop doing so in a manner that removes the names and signatures of other editors and which messes up the flow of the page. You have done so numerous times now, and it is very annoying. It is not proper to remove the signatures of other editors and to bastardize their prior posts just because you can't take the time or make the effort to edit properly. You really need to read AND COMPREHEND the rules and guidelines, and FOLLOW them instead of constantly messing up the format and messing up the flow of the discussion by removing others' signatures and parts of others' posts. Oh, and you really should also stop creating and posting via sockpuppets, too, as amusing as they are. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)}

I believe Jazz has explained his change of opinion. He thought the page should be deleted because he thinks WR is a liar and a fraud and thus not worthy of of a wiki page. Now, interestingly, he apparently finds WR noteworthy enough as a liar and a fraud that the page should stay. I haven't heard anybody yet give any reasons why the article should be deleted. It can't be lack of notability. I suspect that they feel that if they can't own the page, they want to kill it. They could all use some study of journalistic principles.Contrivance (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha, the one that didn't agree with Jazz before. Either delete it or unblock it, very simple.Sharphdmi (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the AfD formatting, added it to the log page, and added the tag here. Sharphdmi, you might want to flesh out the nomination statement a little. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We are waiting for the unblocking to fix last edits from Contrivance.67.85.126.149 (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well 67.85, welcome! I think the idea is that we're supposed to work out our differences before they unblock the page. So it might be a good idea if you explain what exactly is wrong with the current edit. Also, who is "we"? Do you have fleas? You just got here, you've never edited a thing, and already you're part of a gang or a musical group or a cult or what? Contrivance (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An idea that obviously you violated previously. How do you cut an article from CNN to paste a ridiculous thing about publishers? Careful with how your individualise your attacks. I do not have fleas, do you?. Who the hell is Colleen?67.85.126.149 (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have always been ready to discuss my edits and the reasons for them. If you check the talk pages for other editors you will see that I have asked them many questions and they have rarely even responded to my questions, let alone answered. One editor wanted me to listen to a two hour radio program, claiming my answers were there. Another one said the answers were all in video I could buy for just $29.99.

I cut the CNN quote for the reasons I cited many times in the edit summary: because the quote was taken out of context, and thus it was highly misleading. The "ridiculous thing about publishers" was a quote from WR I took from a British newspaper. Do you think WR's claim that he turned down book deals "from every publisher" is ridiculous? If so, why? Do you think he wasn't telling the truth? What reason would he have to lie about that? Contrivance (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read the CNN quote and I disagree with you that it was taken out of context. It came from CNN and it should be reinstated. If you have a point of view, like you have in the talk page, then put the word -assumed, alleged, etc. on it. I believe it is ridiculous that you put that there because it does not fit a heading paragraph. If you insisted, it should go in the other paragraphs of descriptions. Also it is wrong as I have seen you were pointed before on books he has a part on, or written himself. A quick search on those titles on Google, brings the right information, therefore, you may have been correct but based on a past event. If he did it on his own (books) or later on decided to do it, should be reflected as a counterbalance to your statements. You did not do that. Based on your description of your talk page, your mission is to edit the William Rodriguez's page, and then you complain to hear a 2 hour interview when you are provided that link by a poster, also you complain about the video, due to price. As far as I know, C-Span have those online for free viewing. I will take a look to see if I can find it and save you some money.67.85.126.149 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The CNN quote is out of context. It says he climbed to the upper levels. In a 110 story building that means the 85th floor. He did not climb above 39. That's not upper levels. Sharpdhmi then says it's ok because in the article "upper levels" means anything above the basement. But that context is not present in the isolated quote, so it's misleading.

Why doesn't the bit about the movie deals and the book deals belong in the opening paragraph? It says a lot about the man--his notability, and his great concern with his integrity. We should add the bit about where he turned down the million dollars from the victims compensation fund too. I don't know what you're talking about with WR's books. I've never heard of them.

My complaint about the radio show and the C-Span tape was not that I objected to hearing them. I have heard the radio interview --if it was the one that started out with the hosts pretending they were ordering tacos. I have watched the video. My objection was that the editors were claiming that all my questions were answered in these media, and that wasn't true. Contrivance (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is not out of context, it does mention that Rodriguez was in the basement and that he climbed the upper levels with a police officer. I believe you are picking and pushing in order of not to have the quotes added off an article that is important. On the radio interviews, I cannot answer your reasons for not hearing them. What video did you watch again?. The books are out there. I will find also the links and post them accordingly, once the page is unblocked to correct your statements. The information again does not belongs there because it looks like spam, like a PSA for the man.67.85.126.149 (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said the article was out of context. The QUOTE is out of context. The quote out of context makes it misleading. The fact that "the books are out there" does not change the fact that WR claimed that he turned down book deals from every publisher. What statements of mine do you want to correct? You never answered my question about who is "we" that is going to fix my edits.Contrivance (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree with that. The quote is not misleading. So now you accept that the books are out there. It does change the fact indeed. "We" maybe us, or me or a School project, assignment etc.67.85.126.149 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote is misleading. It says "Rodriguez, who had keys to the elevators, began climbing the upper levels of the tower." Rodriguez didn't climb the upper levels of the tower. He didn't even reach the middle levels. Even if "the books are out there," and I've never seen them or heard of them, it doesn't change WR's claims that he turned down book offers from every publisher, so I don't see why you think they're relevant. So you won't tell me who "we" is. Your evasiveness is noted. Contrivance (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not be dishonest, the total quote is "William Rodriguez worked on the basement level of the north tower and was in the building when the first plane struck his building.

"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."

Rodriguez, who had keys to the elevators, began climbing the upper levels of the tower with a police officer to help trapped people. He saw firefighters weighted with rescue equipment catching their breath on the 39th floor." It does establishes the basement in the first line. Your ignorance is also noted.67.85.126.149 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being dishonest and I'm not being ignorant. Unlike you I am aware of the difference between the quote in the wiki article and the quote in the soutrce material. It's misleading to take part of the quote out of context and report in the wiki article that WR "began climbing the upper levels of the tower", because he never even climbed to the middle level. It's also misleading to say he went there to "help trapped people." There's no evidence that he helped any trapped people except Mr. Giambanco and the other unidentified man in the elevator. Those two were in the basement. Contrivance (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you apparently most of the people disagreed with you on this. You said there is no evidence but then mentioned Giambanco and other unidentified man in the elevator that were in the basement. The whole quote was there. Then you agree that It should be quoted completely.67.85.126.149 (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They disgreed but they were wrong. Most of them are clearly quite challenged in reading comprehension in English--probably they refuse to answer questions because they don't understand them. I said there was no evidence EXCEPT Giambanco and the other guy, that they were in the basement, and that there is no evidence that WR helped any trapped people in the upper part of the tower. In fact he specifically said they made no attempt to free people from the elevators. I don't agree that the whole quote should be incorporated. It's badly written and ambiguous. It's mistaken about the "upper levels."

Contrivance (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez is currently on a tour through South America. He is in Guatemala at this moment, invited by one of the biggest Financial Institutions over there. G&T Group. Talking about, adversity and leadership. The article is in Spanish For those who questioned his other speeches and fail to include his speaking engagements from Speakers bureaus previously offered. When the page becomes unblocked, a section will be added for this events. By then more media will be available. By the way, the article does not mentions a single Conspiracy Theory.67.85.126.149 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

South American tour! I'll suppose Shardhmi and all his friends are waiting for WR's return before they weigh in on the wiki issues? I doubt that Rodriguez' career as a management consultant is any more encyclopaedic than his career as a janitor or a magician. It may be gratifying to him but why should anyone else care? Contrivance (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly and evidently you do care.67.85.126.149 (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How nice for you to be able to intuit whatever facts you want to believe. Would this be more ouijee board work? Contrivance (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tarot maybe? or simple deduction? Hey you guys made it in the 9/11 blogger website. More attention for Wikipedia I guess (and the article as well!. 67.82.153.235 (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected Status

My impression is that many editors are waiting for Protection to be lifted so they can jump in and make their favourite changes. It appears that a call to action was made on a 9/11 activists' blog for editors to come and promote their viewpoint on the WR wiki page.

My reading of the administrator's comment when placing the page under protection, "ongoing edit warring; ping me when it's sorted," is that we're supposed to resolve the edit warring issues before Protection will end.

I am not happy with the current version because WR's story of the basement explosions "Pushing up!!!" was removed, the story of the 22-story collapse was removed, and the story of Ed Beyea was removed. I also think the Herald review of WR's presentation is significant because it's the only mainstream review in existence.

Some other people are not happy with the current version because they want the CNN quote saying WR "climbed the upper levels" returned, and because they seem to object to the part saying WR having turned down book and movie deals. Perhaps some people object to any edits made by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrivance (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to see inclusion of WR's refusal of the million dollar award from the victims compensation fund, the "Last Man Out" claim, the fourteen people (including David Lim) trapped in the stairwell, John Schroeder's story about the 12 FDNY people rescued by WR, and the Kenny Johannemann story. Contrivance (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that is your impression. You only want to push your point of view regardless of the many oppositions of how you present them. It is obvious that you do not want to get the page unprotected since the last version, is your version. You took away many edits of other people on that last version. The story that you want to promote is already on the newspaper articles provided with links. The Herald view is your believe to be the only mainstream article out there? YOU CLAIMED IT TO BE THE ONLY ONE IN EXISTENCE. I have other "mainstream" articles waiting to be placed as a counter balance of your view. To make it fair. What does it matter that he refused the money from the Victims's Compensation Fund? Hoew do you know it was a million dollars? Any evidence of the amount? John Schroeder story was discussed at large already. So I vote no on that one too. Kenny Johanneman? You have no respect for this people do you? let the poor soul rest in peace! There is a name of one of the people saved by Willie.67.82.153.235 (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with the current protected version, because much was eliminated before the protection. I said the Herald article was the only mainstream "review" of WR's performance. If you know another one, please let us know. WR's refusal of the million dollar Victims Compensation Fund award is important because it shows his integrity. Contrivance (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kenny Johannemann Story

Kenny Johannemann was a janitor at the WTC. He allegedly killed himself a few days ago.

Video available on the internet records his account of helping a burned man with his skin hanging off from an elevator to an ambulance outside. What's peculiar is that this story is almost identical to Mr. Rodriguez's account of helping Mr. Felipe David to an ambulance. So either there were two men with similar burn injuries, or Mr. Johannemann appropriated WR's story, or WR appropriated Mr. Johanemann's story. Contrivance (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Mr. Johannemann was waiting for an elevator, witnessed the doors of the elevator blow out, witnessed a man on fire in the elevator, grabbed the man from inside the elevator, rolled him on the ground to put out the flames, and took the man out of the building to safety with the assistance of another person. The injured man cannot be Felipe David unless Rodriguez is going to change his story yet again... oh, wait. Rodriguez has changed his story so many times already, what's another one? {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}

BS, all wrong C.E.R. Did you know Kenny? Did you ever called him and asked him if the statements were correct? We will prove you wrong and your sarcastic statements to be just,poison67.82.153.235 (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you babbling about now? And who is this "we" of which you speak? Are you speaking on behalf of a committee of sockpuppets or something? As for your accusations of "sarcastic statements", I am not being "sarcastic" at all. I am simply stating the facts as I know them to exist at the present time, based on all of the available information. If you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means, provide it for consideration by others. People cannot assess that which is being coyly and disingenuously held back by those who purport to be the sole arbiters of what constitutes full and accurate information. In fact, it is very odd that people who claim to have such evidence would hold it back, while simultaneously alluding to being in possession of 'sooper sekrit' alleged evidence. So, unless and until you provide the evidence that you claim to have, stop complaining that others are not considering it. And don't be surprised if people question the timing of any startling new revelations suddenly coming from Rodriguez after seven years and only after the tragic suicide of poor Mr. Johannemann. {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)}

67.82, who's "we"? Do you have fleas? It amazes me how many people editing this page seem to have personal knowledge of the events and mention a group editing effort. Part of my intention in working on this page is to encourage people to back up statements WR has made that have no evidence to support them. So far I haven't seen any of that, though I have seen "the evidence is in this 2-hour radio program" and "the evidence is in this $30 DVD" and attempts to use misleading quotes.Contrivance (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some are members of Architects for 9/11 others are members of Pilots for 9/11, others are survivors of the event. Anybody and somebody. Of course you do not see any evidence when actually presented to you. Your mind is made up anyway. 67.82.153.235 (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of either of those groups. Are they conspiracy theorists? Try presenting some evidence, and see if I see it. I'm here to talk about evidence, not about me. Contrivance (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

>Chuckle< Yeah right, we believe you never heard of none of them. Right. Find your own evidence, we will post ours.67.82.153.235 (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What's to stop you from posting your evidence now? As I understand it, the purpose of a Protection period is to resolve disputes by discussion. The disputes that were causing the edit warring were the insistence of the "we" brigade that the CNN quote saying WR "climbed to upper levels" be included out of context in a highly misleading manner. Also there were ungrammatical constructions, and controversy about inclusion of the material on all the movie deals and book deals WR turned down because of his integrity issues. It might be a good idea if we discuss your evidence before the protection is lifted. Contrivance (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so. The "fleas" may include it or may not. Wrong about the "we" brigade. There is People here that did not agree with you and saw it in a different perspective way before the "fleas" and I got here. Your inclusion of movie deals and books is ridiculous with no added value to the article. Also the insistence to add John Schroeder was discussed at large before most of us were here. You are trying to revive an old dispute about that.67.82.153.235 (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What's to stop you from posting evidence now? The CNN quote was misleading, and those who wanted to include it clearly did not mind that it was misleading. The movie deals quote goes to the heart of the article because it speaks of who Mr. Rodriguez is, the sacrifices he takes to tell his story the way he wants to tell it, and his great concerns about his personal integrity. John Schroeder was not discussed at great length. A lot of people who saw Mr. Schroeder's story on the internet think that WR rescued a dozen FDNY guys who were trapped in a stairwell, and I think it's important to set the record straight. Contrivance (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The CNN quote was not misleading You took it out of context. When you had a problem with it, the whole entire paragraph was added and you cut it off. Under Wikipedia acceptable articles, CNN was a needed and accepted article. How do you know that Rodriguez did not save those firemen? Just because he did not mention then on his speeches? Now where is your evidence on that? Can you prove he did not save them?67.82.153.235 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take it out of context. It was presented out of context by the people who put it in. It was not appropriate to the first paragraph because it went into too much detail for an introductory paragraph. It is not a good quote because it is badly written, ambiguous, and misleading. I can't prove that WR did not save Mr. Schroeder's 12 FDNY guys. I don't need to. WR has never claimed he saved them, and the only evidence that he did is Mr. Schroeder's uncorroborated account, which is lacking in credibility because Mr. Schroeder also made some completely unbelievable statements. Contrivance (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you still lying about that? I have seen the history page by page and it looks like you took it out of context. Now you choose what is appropiate? I also do not think that your statements abput book deals etc, are appropiate for a first paragraph either. You do not need to prove the Schroeder connection? but you still insist in mentioning Schroeder! Funny think is that you finish by attacking Schroeder's credibility. Can I ask what completely unbelievable statements he made? are you just referring to the error of the South Tower? Please clarify.67.82.153.235 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If my reading comprehension was as lousy as yours, I would not be so quick to accuse others of lying. Let's leave this section for discussion of Mr. Johannemann, and move discussion of other topics to new sections Contrivance (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alledgedly. You said: " Mr. Johannemann appropriated WR's story, or WR appropriated Mr. Johanemann's story." You failed to think, " or they helped the same person" Kenny is one of the person Rodriguez helped on 9/11. Evidence will be posted once unblocked. There is an interview around not available as of yet of Kenny Johanneman, where he sets the record straight. Here is the discussion:67.82.153.235 (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since neither mentioned the help of the other, I did not consider both of them helping the same burn victim to be a reasonable possibility. WR claims fifteen "single handed" rescues. I've always assumed that Felipe David was one of them. Recently I've learned that he had help for the rescue of the men in the elevator too. Contrivance (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been no indication whatsoever over the past nearly seven years that Rodriguez "helped" Mr. Johannemann, and I sure hope that Rodriguez is not about to make new claims that he's never made before, following the unfortunate and tragic death of Mr. Johannemann. That would be utterly despicable. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}

Correction, William has mentioned Kenny many times by name, in presentations but not in interviews due to the Victims of Crime Law. He did not have their permission to named them publicly and as so the burden of proof is on you and not on him. Who are you talking about the elevator?67.82.153.235 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen Mr. Rodriguez' presentation many times--the Los Angeles Symposium, the Dutch TV, the C-Span, and one other. I have never seen him mention Mr. Johannemann's help in evacuating Mr. David. If he has acknowledged this help please provide links. At the Los Angeles Symposium he told the story this way: "I took those 15 people and led them out of the office, through the loading dock, through a hill, outside the building, with Mr. Pelipe David on my back… until I saw an ambulance. I stopped the ambulance and put Mr. Pelipe David inside." He does not mention Mr. Johannemann. Contrivance (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction, William has mentioned Kenny many times by name, in presentations but not in interviews due to the Victims of Crime Law. He did not have their permission to named them publicly and as so the burden of proof is on you and not on him. Who are you talking about the elevator?. Also, Kenny speak about the burnt person in the area of the elevators, William in the area of his office, a video of his encounter with Felipe or here will help you a little. Also you said "I have seen Mr. Rodruiguez' presentation many times--the Los Angeles Symposium, the Dutch TV, the C-Span, and one other." C-Span? Which one? apparently you did not have the 29 dolllars to watch it.67.82.153.235 (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been no indication whatsoever over the past nearly seven years that Rodriguez "helped" Mr. Johannemann, and I sure hope that Rodriguez is not about to make new claims that he's never made before, following the unfortunate and tragic death of Mr. Johannemann. That would be utterly despicable. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}

Wrong again C.E.R. , Rodriguez and Kenny were very good friends and worked together for the same company. He was one of the persons helped by Rodriguez on 9/11. Utterly despicable will be to imply you know Kenny's total story by a few clips you may have read on the internet.67.82.153.235 (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Johannemann required Rodriguez's "help". If you have any such evidence, by all means, provide it for consideration by others. Meanwhile, by all accounts over the past nearly seven years, Mr. Johannemann saved a fellow who was on fire in an elevator, doused the flames, and helped the person out of the building. If Rodriguez is claiming at this late date that he somehow rescued Mr. Johannemann, well, Rodriguez's timing for this startling revelation is just as suspect as his ever-changing story over the past several years has been. But, by all means, bring on your evidence. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)}

There is evidence coming, as soon as we clear the family issue. It will be provided once their permission is given. You keep quoting Rodriguez changing his story, without checking other sources, meaning the other survivors. They will make their appeareance accordingly. We are working the details and will have some input after the next couple of weeks. 67.82.153.235 (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, of course you have startling, new evidence that proves your conspiracy fantasies, and you'll be be providing it any day now. Er, um, I mean, according to you, you'll be providing it... a couple of weeks ago. Oops. I guess not. But that is always the mantra of the "truth" movement - that there is evidence "Coming Soon! No, Really! Seriously, We Really Really Mean It This Time! Honest!" And yet, it never materializes. So, sorry, Mr. IP Address Cyberstalker, but I'm not buying your most recent promises any more than any rational person would buy any of the previous promises of "evidence" made by you and your fellow 9/11 fantasists. You've failed again. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

John Schroeder Story

The John Schroeder story is an interesting look into the world of internet lore, one of the mysteries of the WR story.Contrivance (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

However, the article is not about John Schroeder, nor about internet lore. There is no verifiable evidence that Mr. Shroeder had any interaction with Rodriguez at all. Further, it is sadly apparent that the poor man has some serious problems and it would be, in my view, unfair to him to drag him into the Rodriguez article.{Jazz2006 (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)}

How interesting double standard.190.156.252.190 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people took Schroeder's story at face value when it was promoted by the Loose Change guys and WeAreChange, so I think a lot of people believe that WR rescued a dozen FDNY guys from the stairwell at level 4. It would be well to set the record straight. Also, the Schroeder event may have impinged on WR's status in the Truth movement. WR was featured prominently in the Loose Change 2 movie, but he was cut out of the LC 3, though Mr. Schroder was included. The extremely insincere way that Mr. Schroeder puts his hands together and looks skyward and says "God bless you Willie!" makes me wonder if Mr. Schroeder is crazy like a fox. I don't think the Schroeder story should be rejected out of hand as irrelevant. I think it may have been instrumental in derailing Willie's hero career in the USA. Contrivance (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

How sad of you calling a firefighter who risked his life on and before 9/11 crazy like a fox. It does tell a lot about your character. Calling also insincere his feeling and actions. Who are you to predict what's inside the hearts of these people? I have only respect and sadness for them and for all they have endured. You piece of trash! Doing you a favor and sending this piece to John Schroeder directly via email.68.192.124.44 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Piece of trash"? Aw, you might hurt someone's feelings, talking like that. FYI "crazy like a fox" is not an insult. Have you listened to the Jack Blood radio program featuring both Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Rodriguez? Contrivance (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Very sad indeed. Call out other people in your fight. Trashing victims. Not nice.190.156.252.190 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very sad, indeed, that Rodriguez has trashed so many victims of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, particularly the family members who received telephone calls from their now deceased loved ones from the hijacked flights, and particularly the members of the FDNY who he accused of being in on his imaginary conspiracies. I agree with you that this was not nice at all. Rodriguez should be ashamed of himself. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}

your opinion like always, Rodriguez is more respected by the family members and isa member to some of thhir organisations as well. Has served as translator for many of then and provided support in many of the press conferences. You should be ashamed of your self. Try connecting with some of the groups as he has done, or do some real support for the victims instead of trashing the guy.67.85.126.95 (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Rodriguez, I have never disrespected the family members of those who died at the hands of the terrorists on 9/11, nor have I ever disrespected the firefighters and other first responders who died at the hands of the terrorists that day. It is very sad, indeed, that Rodriguez has done so, repeatedly. I am not "trashing" Rodriguez. He has done that all by himself. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)}

Well how do we now you are telling the truth? As far as we are concerned, Mr. Rodriguez is very well respected by the 9/11 family groups. Your trashing is obvious. Care to check with the 9/11 Skycrapper Safety Campaign organisation? What about the Families for Proper Burial? What about 9/11 family group? What about the Governor's Office (NY)? Let me know what you come up with. Hater.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading CNN Quote on "climb the upper levels"

Yes, I took the quote "climbed the upper levels" out of context, as any reader would. That's why I object to including it. It was misleading when it's out of context. Some editors didn't mind that it was misleading.Contrivance (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Contrivance on this point. It is, indeed, misleading without proper context. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)}

I disagree with both of you, not misleading. IT should be reinstated in it`s full quote.190.156.252.190 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote says WR climbed the "upper levels" of the tower. He didn't climb above 39. It's misleading. Contrivance (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WR's turning down of movie and book deals

WHY are the book deals inappropriate to the first graf? Seems to me the quote encapsulates Willie's character and the dilemma of his hero career--the enormous pressures on him to tell his story one way or another way, and his determination to tell it his way. And also his great concerns about his personal integrity.Contrivance (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there have been no credible sources offered for Rodriguez's claims to have turned down movie and book deals. I don't doubt that he says he did, but Rodriguez is not a reliable source for such information. See WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. (In fact, re-reading WP:SELFPUB, it occurs to me that some of the references already cited in the article are probably subject to being deleted, but that's a discussion for another time.) In the meantime, if you can sources in which moviemakers and book publishers say that they made such offers and that Rodriguez turned them down, those would likely meet the Wiki criteria. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)}

Contrivance, I should also have added this: If WR's claims about turning down book and movie deals are sourced only to WR himself, the source is not encyclopedic. However, there are ways and means to either corroborate or refute WR's claims by locating book publishers and/or movie producers who would, most likely, refute his claims. If and when that is done, WR is no longer the sole source of information and, assuming for the moment that those sources established that WR is exaggerating in his book/movie claims, then it would certainly be fair game to cite Rodriguez's self-claims, as doing so would illustrate reality vs. fantasy, and demonstrate - again - exaggerations on WR's part. However, in the absence of other sources and with only WR himself as a source of his claims, the content thusfar is non-encyclopedic. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)}

I find it strange to agree with Jazz2006 on anything, but on this one, she got it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.153.235 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree that Rodriguez is not a reliable source and that anything he says requires corroboration by reliable sources before it can be considered encyclopedic by Wikipedia standards. Please keep that in mind in future, particularly when you argue in favour of including non-encyclopedic references in support of WR when they actually only amount to him blowing his own horn.{Jazz2006 (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}

I think I know what I need to keep in mind. Wiki rules is very clear on that. Blowing his horn? there you go again "RobertShaw" , personalizing the statements.67.85.126.95 (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you comprehend the rules of Wikipedia at all, frankly. You certainly seem to be oblivious to the WP:PRIVACY rules, despite having had them drawn to your attention, as you continue to use yet another sockpuppet account of a certain poster who thinks he can intimidate me into silence by making oblique references to my real life identity. As I said before, I refuse to be intimidated by cyberstalkers, and you aren't my first. I will not back down from creepy cyberstalkers such as yourself, so you may as well give it up. You are breaching the rules here in a particularly odious and cowardly way. That seems to be par for the course for Rodriguez, his sockpuppets, and a couple of his groupies. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)}

Still waiting for the evidence that I ask you in a post before. Do not be intimidated, nobody is threatening you with physical harm, posting your address, your phone number, your work number etc. We are not calling your employer, your mayor or your City manager. So don't be a cry little baby. Creepy? I am creeped out by your obsession with WR. He should feel the same. Odious? Cowardly? If you want to hide behind your id to attack others, that is your prerogative. I only spoke of third persons. Those included an allegedge and apparent whore from JREF, a third class litigator, and a college student who only claim to fame was a discovery of a memo. If they all relate to you, then that is your problem. I may be a grouppie, I may be lloking for fairness, etc. As far as I know, you are till way out of your league here. Have fun and join the discussion.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are, indeed, an odious, creepy, and cowardly Internet stalker, but I refuse to be intimidated by the likes of Rodriguez, his tiny band of groupies, or the other small cadre of 9/11 tinhatters who are also stalking me across the Internet, so knock yourself out, little man, if that's what it takes for you to feel like a man. Your pathetic BS is just that, and you aren't fooling anyone with two or more arcing brain cells with your abject nonsense. But do at least try to follow the rules of the site. You seem to have a real problem doing so. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

Rico Lawsuit

Once unblocked, new information will be added. Including latest statement by Lawyer Phil Berg. William Rodriguez's statement of his firing the lawyer and walking away from the case, etc. Statement from Phil Berg Philip J. Berg represented Ellen Mariani and later William Rodriguez in two separate RICO lawsuits, both of which were withdrawn without prejudice. Part of Rodriguez suit was dismissed. Philip J. Berg has not represented William Rodriguez for over two years. Because of personal reasons, Philip J. Berg has not proceeded with any 911 litigation in two years. Also, Rodriguez spoke to an attorney who wrote the following: "Today, however, I received an e-mail from William Rodriguez, the plaintiff in Philip Berg's second racketeering (RICO) action against President Bush and the federal government in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001. He mentioned that his no longer has a professional relationship with Berg, yet his former attorney continues to solicit donations on his Web site in Rodriguez's name. As for the reason for the termination of his relationship with Berg, Rodriguez maintained that, while he was traveling around the world giving presentations about his heroism on that awful Tuesday morning in September, he received the content of his lawsuit--which he hoped would "honestly get answers for many of the victims of 9/11"--and was "rightly surprised to see the amount of allegations that I did not subscribe to." "I believe that it was spiced up with every conspiracy theory in the book," Rodriguez told me. "I did not agree with that, and do not subscribe to that." More items, like Berg implying he was still Rodriguez attorney and Willie's anger about this can be found on the internet.67.82.153.235 (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a head's up for you before you consider editing the page with that posted above. The statement that Rodriguez's lawsuit was "withdrawn without prejudice" is patently false. The court documents already linked show this quite clearly. The statement that "part of Rodriguez suit was dismissed" is also patently false. The court documents show this quite clearly. The statement that Rodriguez was "rightly surprised to see the amount of allegations that [he] did not subscribe to" is patently false. He personally swore affidavits that included the most outrageous and ludicrous accusations, as clearly shown in the court documents. Further, the person alluded to above whom Rodriguez allegedly spoke to is not a lawyer as you and/or Rodriguez claim. Rather, he is a writer and part time law student. Moreover, there have been lengthy discussions on the talk page about Rodriquez's lawsuit and whether it was appropriate to go off on tangents about Berg, and the consensus was that the article is about Rodriguez, not Berg, and that therefore it was not appropriate. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)}

Well I believe this information should be added anyway by the poster 67.82.153.235. Since the whole page goes on the tangent about other people's stories, then this should be added to give a glimpse of what is being discussed and contested out there. I do not agree it should be left out. I have signed lenghty amounts of legal papers without even reading them, example, when I bought my house. I understand if he signed the paper without really knowing the amount of garbage that was going to be presented in court. Also, it is comendable that he walked away from that lawyer and it should be noted.66.93.250.202 (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Signing papers while buying a house is not even remotely on the same level as swearing an affidavit accusing hundreds of people, by name and otherwise, of complicity in mass murder. Rodriguez did the latter. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}

That is your opinion of course.190.156.252.190 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it is. But if you do not see the difference between buying a house and swearing an affidavit accusing hundreds of people of complicity in the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people, especially in the absence of evidence to support such egregious accusations, well, there is little help for you. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)}

There is little help for you too.67.82.153.226 (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously not see the difference between buying a house and swearing an affidavit accusing hundreds of people of being complicit in the murder of thousands despite having no evidence whatsoever to support such accusations? {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}

Nowhere in reference #24, "Rodriguez Complaint", pointing to http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/RodriguezComplaint.pdf, does it state that Rodriguez alleges that "missiles were fired at the Twin Towers from “pods” affixed to the underside of the planes that struck them". I read the document, and this is not in the source cited. I demand that it is removed. Ithaka84 (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Ithaka. This egregious error needs to be changed. It doesn't say "missiles." It says "projectiles" were fired from the pods. Thanks for your help in keeping the facts straight! Contrivance (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe he believes that. It's nonsense. It seems to me that someone is trying to attack his credibility to make people forget about the explosions many people heard from the basement seconds before the plane hit.Ithaka84 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting Philip J. Berg wrote about pods in the Rodriguez v. Bush lawsuit in an effort to damage WR's credibility? Contrivance (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ithaka84, Rodriguez is the one who put his name on his allegations. If he didn't want to be associated with the allegations he made, he should not have made them and he should not have sworn affidavits accusing hundreds of people of complicity in mass murder. He has nobody to blame but himself for his actions or for his credibility problems. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}

And he has accepted the stupidity of it, of course you do not accept that in order to perpetuate your stance.190.156.252.190 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He has? Where? If you have evidence that Rodriguez has admitted that he swore false affidavits accusing hundreds of people of complicity in the murder of thousands, I'd love to see it. So far, all I have seen is Rodriguez trying to distance himself from his own false allegations by blaming others. {Jazz2006 (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)}

Links were posted and also the interview from abovetopsecret.com.67.82.153.226 (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And nowhere in that link does he admit that he swore false affidavits accusing hundreds of people of complicity in the murder of thousands. Like I said, all I have seen so far is Rodriguez trying to distance himself from his own false allegations by blaming others. {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)}

"Last Man Out"-- the claim and the movie

Some people objected to mention of WR's "Last Man Out" branding, and mention of his association with the iconic key. Some objected to mention of the new DVD "Last Man Out," arguing that it's advertising. I don't understand the reasoning behind these objections. I understand that WR is trying to reinvent himself as a disaster management consultant. Contrivance (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez has spoken about Disaster Management for several years now. On the 9/11 United Services Group (now closed) formed after initiative by Elliot Spitzer. He was also a member of the Human Services Council of NY for Disaster Preparedness. Contact them and find out. He has given speeches in many countries on this theme alone through speaker's bureaus. 67.82.153.235 (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez is less qualified to speak about Disaster Management than I am to speak about Quantum Physics. Which is to say, not very. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}

How do you know what courses he has taken or training he has attended? Please enlighten us. Apparently he is getting booked and doing a pretty good job. Oh let me guess, that is your opinion of course.190.156.252.190 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I found some evidence. Will post it accordingly with links to prove how false your statements are.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that Rodriguez has taken any courses or training in disaster management. Had he done so, I have no doubt that Rodriguez would have mentioned it. He has spent the past seven years blowing his own horn, after all. Rodriguez's primary goals appear to be promoting himself and "getting booked" even if he has to exaggerate his role in the tragic events of 9/11 to do so (which he has clearly done - his "I was the last survivor pulled from the rubble" nonsense is a good example, as is his unsupported claim to be the only one on site to have a master key, as is his claim to have saved hundreds of people). And yes, of course, I am stating my own opinion. I would not purport to give someone else's opinion, after all. What an odd thing to say. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)}

The master key issue, will it be ok some original research here? I will love to see your proof that this is false.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw the mod discuss his personal emails with WR up the page, so I think it's permissible to discuss original research here, but not on the page. Contrivance (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm have you contacted him about it? LAst from the rubble quote again? Links were posted to some interviews were he corrected his statements. Of course, you are not to accept any corrections from his part if it goes again your agenda to keep him in the past so you can attack him.67.82.153.226 (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would I contact him about it? He is busily running all over the Internet making inconsistent claims just as he has done for several years now, including on his own website. Especially since direct contact with him would result only in "original research" and would, therefore, not be permissible on Wiki. Not to mention that the results would also be non-encyclopedic as Rodriguez is not a credible source for purposes of promoting his various versions of events. I am not attacking him at all. I am just pointing out his inconsistencies and his ever-changing versions of events. He is the one who keeps claiming to be the "last man out" and the "last survivor pulled from the rubble". He is the one who keeps claiming to have saved "hundreds of lives" when that is simply not true. He is the one who keeps claiming that he single-handedly saved 15 people when there is no evidence to support that claim at all. So, don't blame me, or others, for pointing out that his claims are FAR from established as factual. Blame him for giving so many different stories, and for telling stories that are patently false. And what on earth are you talking about re: an "agenda to keep him in the past"? That doesn't even make sense, and I have no idea what you're talking about. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)}

Real good researcher you are. You do not need "original researcch" to be placed into the article but it does gives you an advantage to see, find correct information and clarifications. Of course I have written to him and have shared information on where to find info. He is extremely busy but does return emails. I bet you 100 that you cannot find a quote where he still claims to be the last person pulled from the rubble. I believe that he saved the 15 people and you who works as a litigator should know that as part of his case, this could have been part of the discovery process. You who only claim to fame, was to help somebody when in college, to be released from prison, must have a better understanding than anybody that a Victim of crime cannot be named without permission and I believe he does not have all the permissions but indeed have the names. Whether it is because of trauma, timidity or wathever, they have that right. Inconsistencies? like all the attackers, you seem to have a better knowledge than the victims of what was going around them on 9/11.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You should familiarize yourself with the rules of editing at Wikipedia and you should also familiarize yourself with reality. As for your oblique and not so oblique references to my real life identity - you have made several under your most recent multiple IP identities and several under your most recent other sockpuppet identities - you should familiarize yourself with WP:PRIVACY as you have been in breach of it several times. You should also take note that your allegations about me in the post above are not only a breach of the rules here, but they are also quite wrong. You should try to educate yourself on the university and post-university system if you are going to even attempt to pretend to have an inkling of an iota of a smidgen of understanding of it, since it is obvious from your post above that you haven't a clue. Also, you must know, of course, that Rodriquez's BS complaints were dismissed by the court before the discovery process took place. The defendants did not even have to file defences in response to Rodriguez's claims because his claims were - quite correctly - dismissed before any obligation to respond to them by way of defence ever arose for any of the 156 defendants. You should also try to familiarize yourself with the law, as your assertions about it in the post above are dead wrong. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}

You believe WR saved fifteen people though he has provided no evidence of that, and then you even manufacture the story that the evidence was part of the the discovery process in the lawsuit. I find it very creepy that you, an anonymous internet poster, seem to claim knowledge of Jazz's college career. Probably you are bluffing and completely off the mark, but it strikes me as an attempt to threaten and intimidate, and if it's not a violation of wiki rules it should be. Contrivance (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

67.85.126.95 is just the most recent sockpuppet of a certain poster who thinks that he can intimidate me into silence by making oblique references to my identity. I refuse to be intimidated by cyberstalkers, and this current one isn't the first one I've had. There are presently a few of them - including this one - working together in attempts to intimidate me into silence, and it just isn't going to happen. Cyberstalkers are a particularly odious bunch. They seem to think that they can intimidate others, particularly women, into silence by interfering in the personal and professional lives of those who disagree with them. I simply will not back down from them, and that seems to bother them even more. As for the rest of your post, you are correct that Mr. IP Address Cyberstalker is wrong about just about everything he's posted above, and you are correct that his creepy cyberstalking is indeed a breach of the rules here, as well as a breach of the norms of behaviour among decent and civilized people, and you are correct that his behaviour is, well, creepy. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}

I know much more. Jazz knows what I am talking about. If you intend to get involved in the argument with her, welcome.67.85.126.95 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See above, Mr. IP Address Cyberstalker. And familiarize yourself with the rules while you're at it. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}

WR Announces He's Quitting the 9/11 Truth Movement

On the PowerHour internet radio program WR announced "I am distancing myself from now on from many of the Truth movement leaders, from the people that are supposedly doing research...." He said "I want to continue my mission totally disassociated from the movement." He complained of being attacked by a couple of individuals and cryptically added: "the same thing is happening with everybody out there." Contrivance (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Good for him! I did not see it as complaining as you pointed out but as one of the indications of the many stupid theories out there that he does not believe in. He mentioned Architects for 9/11 truth. An organisation noted for allegedly having people infiltrated in their ranks. He never said once that he was part of the movement, but that he was distancing himself from many of the people of the movement. Big difference there. He will continue doing his mission as he has done very succesfully in many countries without the conection to the movement. Very clear. He says he likes Richard Gage but then again, he once said he liked Mark Roberts. He also once apparently liked an alledged "whore" named LAshL from JREf. Liking and supporting, 2 different things.67.82.153.235 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez and the inaptly self-named "truth" movement - they remind me of a Bob Seger song called Night Moves. Particularly these lines, with a minor adaptation for proper grammar in light of the singular/plural change: "He used them, they used him, but neither one cared. They were getting their share." It fits. In my opinion, it appears that Rodriguez is finally and belatedly distancing himself from the "truth" movement (which has already, largely, abandoned him) because he realizes that he can't use them any longer, because the "movement" is nearly dead, and because he is scrambling to abandon a sinking ship in hopes of salvaging whatever he can for himself. That's just my opinion, of course. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}

Of course that is your opinion. Nobody asked you for it. Sinking ship? He clearly states he staying aeay from some in the movement. Salvaging for himself? Last I checked, he is still booked all over. Flew to NY from his Latin American Tour for couple of interviews on 9-11 and then back to his schedule. People like you is who make it easier for him to continue doing what you hate him for. That is my opinion of course.190.156.252.190 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that Rodriguez is all about getting himself "booked all over" but I don't hate the guy. I dislike what I view as opportunism on his part; I dislike that he has exaggerated his role in the tragic events of 9/11; I dislike that he has changed his story several times; I dislike that he has accused hundreds of people of complicity in the murder of nearly 3000 people without a scintilla of evidence; and I dislike his propensity for posting the personal information of others under the numerous sockpuppet accounts that he has used here, but I don't hate the guy. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)}

Now is about getting booked? make up your mind will you? Now is oprtunism? Personal information of people?

"I dislike his propensity for posting the personal information of others under the numerous sockpuppet accounts that he has used here" But you offer no proof is him. Wow.You are really good accusing people as well, with no evidence. You do hate the guy, that is my opinion of course.67.82.153.226 (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you as your post implied that the most important thing for Rodriguez is getting "booked all over". I don't doubt that that is what is most important to him, and I am glad that you brought it up. His speeches are primarily about himself, about how "heroic" he was on 9/11, about how many people he allegedly saved, about garnering more attention for himself more than anything, etc. In other words, his being "booked all over" is a direct result of his repeated exaggerations of his role in the tragic events of 9/11, thus it is opportunism. As for the rest, yes, I also dislike that he accuses hundreds of people of complicity in the mass murder of thousands without a scintilla of evidence to support his accusations, and I also dislike his propensity for posting the personal information of others on the Internet. These are hardly "heroic" actions, are they? I don't hate the guy. I'm a "hate the sin, not the sinner" sort of person. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)}

Have you heard his speeches? or only the ones you saw on the internet? Exagerations? care to explain which ones that he have not already corrected? Propensity of posting info? we are still waiting for your evidence, of course you do not have any. Care to show how many versions of changing his story do you have? I mean his own words, like a sound interview and not a printed one?. I do not have to be a wizard to find out who you are. You also lied about being in Toronto in your personal page, that is simply not true. You lied. Why don't you correct it?. You hate the guy, my opinion of course.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're babbling incoherently again. Like I said above, I was agreeing with you that the most important thing to Rodriguez is getting himself "booked all over" and I believe you that that's the most important thing to him. Sheesh. The evidence of Rodriguez's numerous inconsistent accounts has been posted repeatedly and is a matter of public record. Your purported concerns about my personal information are both irrelevant and incorrect, not to mention being cyber-stalkish and against the rules. Finally, your allegation that I "hate" Rodriguez is also incorrect, as I have addressed previously. You really should familiarize yourself with the rules, with the facts, and with reality. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}

He complained of being attacked. He said it got to the point that he was going to disassociate himself from the movement. He certainly appears to have regarded homself as part of the movement. He said "My mission - to find the truth and expose the lies of 9/11- is the dynamo that keeps me motivated." Contrivance (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Contrivance, it would be helpful if when you indent by way of colons on the talk page that you just increase the indent by ONE colon at a time instead of two, so that other posts responding to the same post that you are responding to end up in the correct position, without others having to add extra indents to match your erroneous number of colons. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}

You really have a way to interpret things to fit your point of view isn't? He has been attacked by many, in many ways and in many capacities and he stills find his mission to be the power dynamo that keeps him going. Getting invited and used by the so-called movement does not mean he agrees with all the theories out there or that he supports them either. I hope he does disassociate from those nutbars out there. He does a lot by himself and as you say in your talk page, he is larger than life.67.82.153.235 (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as I said to Contrivance above, I will repeat the same message to you here. It would be helpful if when you indent by way of colons on the talk page that you just increase the indent by ONE colon at a time instead of two, so that other posts responding to the same post that you are responding to end up in the correct position, without others having to add extra indents to match your erroneous number of colons. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}

got it.190.156.252.190 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's larger than life any more. That was just an illusion. Contrivance (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, Hocus Pocus, never believe in magic. I beleive in Rodriguez. Is easy for you to say that, but if he does it and changes his views, example of this is the Rico lawsuit, then he is a liar. How convenient from you.190.156.252.191 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez is in Colombia and have taken the media by storm. No talk about conspiracy. Love, compassion and the meaning of 9/11 for the people here. Top media coverage.190.156.252.191 (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe magic, don't believe magicians. Re: Colombia, Got link? Maybe in Colombia he can find a movie deal or a book deal that won't compromise his integrity. Contrivance (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

believer? wow. I was ready to post the links until I saw your latest revision and changed my mind. Your sarcastic comments about deals are exactly what everybody is talking about to be removed from your editing of WR's page. Do your own research, google is your friend, if unblocked I will open a new section and post them if by them you have not found them.190.156.252.191 (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that anyone cares that you refuse to post links supporting your own assertions? Here's a hint: the answer is, "No." {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}

And who do you think cares about your diatribes? Here is a hint for you "Robertshaw" I will post and open new sections as needed once the page is open. I will place the relevant links there and then you can discuss them.190.156.252.190 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll need yet another sockpuppet account to do that, it appears. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)}

And you will need another member of JREF like Aude to do that as well.67.82.153.226 (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to elaborate? {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)}

Do we need to elaborate?67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "we" of which you speak? {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)}

There was a call for action. We came.67.85.126.95 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you blathering about, Mr. IP Address Cyberstalker? Who is the "we" of which you speak? You seem to post from a number of IP addresses that all resolve to the same server and the same location. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

Thank you for the information user 190.156.252.190.67.82.153.226 (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking to yourself now? Tsk, tsk. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)}

Prove it. Bet you a 20 you can't. Personally, I hope he does not leave the truth movement since he is doing a great effort to reach millions. I hope that by sending links like this page to his email, he feels motivated to stay and continue to make you and others angry.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious, as anyone with a modicum of Internet savvy will tell you. I'll leave the details for you to figure out since it appears that you lack that modicum of Internet savvy. As for the third sentence of your post, I personally couldn't care less about Rodriguez staying in or leaving the "truth" movement. He will do whatever he perceives to be in his own best interests, as always. As I said previously, citing a Bob Seger song, "He used them, they used him, neither one cared, they were getting their share." As for the balance of your post, yeah, it's a real shame that rational people get annoyed at Rodriguez making unfounded accusations against innocent people while he accuses them of complicity in the murder of thousands. It's a real shame that rational people get annoyed at Rodriguez making unfounded accusations against family members of the deceased. It's a real shame that rational people get annoyed at Rodriguez making unfounded accusations against firefighters who lost 343 of their fellow firefighters in NYC on 9/11. Yeah, such a shame. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)}

BS from you like always, just post one single family attacking Rodriguez/ Post a single firefighter attacking Rodriguez or finally, post a single survivor attacking Rodriguez. For each one you post , I will post at least 20 supporting him. Deal? Put up or shut up. Also stop lying on your personal page. You are not in Toronto.67.85.126.95 (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You really need to start reading for comprehension. You seem to have great difficulty doing so. And you really ought to stop erecting strawmen. You aren't fooling anyone except yourself and perhaps a handful of conspiracy fantasists by doing so. The fact is that Rodriguez has made numerous unfounded accusations against family members of the deceased and against firefighters who lost 343 of their fellow firefighters in NYC on 9/11. You cannot change that reality with your bluster. Don't you think that Rodriguez should apologize for those unfounded accusations? {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)}

Read my previous post, it answers and post questions for you. Did you get the reaction from the family groups yet?67.85.126.95 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I did read your previous post, as evidenced by the fact that I responded to it. Your subsequent post is just more fluff and blather. The reality is that Rodriguez has repeatedly made numerous unfounded accusations against family members of the deceased and against firefighters who lost 343 of their fellow firefighters in NYC on 9/11. You cannot change that reality with your fluff and nonsense. Don't you agree that Rodriguez should apologize for his numerous unfounded allegations? You seem to be suggesting that unless specific individuals call Rodriguez out on his indefensible behaviour, that somehow exonerates him for having engaged in his egregious and, frankly, disgusting behaviour of making myriad unfounded allegations against innocent people. That is simply not legitimate. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

Why do you need a post from Jazz to justify posting your alleged evidence? Why doesn't WR have testimonials from family members on his website or as affidavits in his lawsuit? Why do you guys always claim the evidence is in some two hour radio program or some $30 DVD or you refuse to post it because you're pissed off or whatever. It smells fishy.

I think Schroeder's crazy story about how Willie saved the lives of a dozen FDNY guys who were trapped in the stairwell is an attack on Willie. Now will you post your 20? Are any of them among the 15 people WR allegedly rescued single handedly? I hope so, because the information that he had help rescuing Mr. Giambanco has reduced the number of documented single-handed rescues to zero. Contrivance (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I was taking to jazzy and you selected to get involved, here is my view..There you go pissing on the victims again. My bet still stands. Schroeder does not attack Willie, the opposite, supports his actions of that day. They have met several times this year and an interview of them together was filmed by WE ARE CHANGE. It is not available as of yet. Are you claiming he did not saved Giambanco?67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pissing on anybody. The mystery of why Mr. Schroeder's impossible story was promoted by the We Are Change guys and the Loose Change guys was one of the things that drew me to the William Rodriguez story. I could not believe those activists could be so credulous as to accept this story. I tend to think that Mr. Schroeder was, by crediting WR with rescues he never did, pointing up the implausibilities in WR's story, and demonstrating the wishes of gullible Truthers to believe what they want to believe. Contrivance (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are. You are the only one to have brought up Schroeder. Not even truthers out there, usese his statements. Activist out there? who are you referring to?67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Schroeder appears in the Loose Change Final Cut movie, he spoke on the Jack Blood and spoke with WR there. Mr. Schroeder's 40 minute video interview was heavily promoted by the Loose Change guys and the We Are Change guys. Contrivance (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, didn't you said in the past that they never met? Wasn't in one of your posts, until you were proved wrong, that you implied that Rodriguez never mentions Schroeder or others but yet you complained that he never supplies the names of people saved?!! YOu are still the only onne insisting on the John Schroeder story which does not have any relevance to the article. You have not received conscenus on this matter as far as I can check.67.85.126.95 (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are very confused. The Schroeder story has relevance because it may have gotten WR cut out of the Loose Change movie and greatly affected WR's status in the 9/11 Truth movement. I said WR never mentioned Mr. Schroeder in his program, the one he gave on Dutch TV, and at the 2006 LA Symposium, and the C-Span one he gave in LA in 2007. WR and Schroeder didn't meet on the Jack Blood program. They talked on the phone. WR never supplies the names of people saved except those of Salvatore Giambanco and Felipe David. [User:Contrivance|Contrivance]] (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Coming from a "scholar" like you, it is a badge of honor.67.85.126.95 (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What a strange and incoherent non-sequitur.{Jazz2006 (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

International Travels

To be added on his trips block. Rodriguez was in Colombia this week and got a ton of national media coverage. .67.85.126.95 (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to me is the fact that the above information was posted at the Truth movement forum 911blogger on 9-23-08 and there was only one comment on the post--even though WR's announcement that he was disassociating himself from the Truth movement should have inspired some reaction. Many of the postings since then have generated 10 or even 15 comments. Also there's no mention of WR's Colombia triumph at the TruthAction forum. Looks like the Truthers have lost interest in Willie. Does anyone know why? Contrivance (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that it's because even most members of the increasingly small "truth movement" recognize that Rodriguez has given so many inconsistent versions of his ever-changing story (the only constant being having himself as the focal point) that he cannot be believed about any particular version. (Jazz2006 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Did any of the media coverage explain why he's distancing himself from the leadership of the Truth movement and the researchers and why he want to disassociate himself from the Truth movement? Contrivance (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Coming from somebody who made fun of people not able to comprehend english very well, you should get the articles translated. Hint, I do not find any Conspiracy theory on them.67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought I might get a yes or no answer. Thanks, I won't bother with them. I didn't make fun of those who had language challenges; I simply noted their poor reading comprehension and reluctance to respond to questions. Contrivance (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Willie's disaster management consultant presentation discuss the desirability of having fire exits that are not locked? Does he claim in his disaster management presentations that he saved hundreds of people because the fire doors were locked? Has he ever estimated how many hundreds remained trapped behind locked fire exits in Tower 2 and above the 39th floor in Tower 1 and so perished because they could not be saved by his Key of Hope? Contrivance (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know he does put out recomendations worked on while he was part of the 9/11 United Service Group, HSC Disaster Preparedness Program, etc. Go ask him about his estimations and those of NIST.67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Does NIST validate Willie's claim that people were trapped behind locked fire exits? How many hundreds perished in WTC2 and above 39 because Willie wasn't there to save them? How could he turn down from 39 to save one person, Ed Beyea, when hundreds remained above 39 that needed him to save their lives? Contrivance (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Long interview of WIlliam Rodriguez on CNN en Español talking about Disaster Management and the lessons of 9/11 . To be added later.67.85.126.95 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Does he advocate the redesign of fire exit doors so it's no longer necessary for the janitorial staff to go around unlocking doors to allow people to escape from burning buildings? If not, why not? Contrivance (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

From Spain. TVE,(Spain's Main TV Network)67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Typical. I very much doubt that Mr. Rodriguez goes around advocating the redesign of fire exit doors. Contrivance (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Do your own research. Since you have made fun in the past of people from other countries, why facilitate your stupidity? Go to your next "bodega" they may help you. 67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got my answer. Another anonymous internet presence pretends to answer questions by posting uncheckable links, and shows a complete lack of interest in honest scholarship and truth. I haven't made fun of people from other countries. I do find it amusing when people try to disguise their dishonesty as language misunderstandings. Contrivance (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, you were an anonymous internet presence. Isn't it? So are you a scholar? We don't want to be accused by you of exposing who you are, like jazz2006 did. Agreed? DO your scholarly research and the links are aceptable under wiki rules so stop bitching.[Special:Contributions/67.85.126.95|67.85.126.95]] (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am an anonymous internet presence. Unlike others here, I do not dishonestly cite links that don't say what I claim they say. Yes, I'm a scholar, and if you're not, you've got no business editing wiki articles. There's no way you'll ever know who I am. Willie likes to pretend there's only a couple of people in the world who've noticed that his stories don't add up, but that's not true. Contrivance (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

On your quote: "Willie likes to pretend there's only a couple of people in the world who've noticed that his stories don't add up, but that's not true." You imply internal knowledge of his thinking. As far as I know he is in Colombia doing presentations there and may not even be bothered by people like you attacking him. Since you know him better, can you tell us what else does he thinks about other people out there? Are you challenging me to out you? because of the internet anonymous presence you have? Are you giving permission to expose you? Do we have permission?67.85.126.95 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt you are a scholar. My opinion of course. You clearly said, and I quote: " Yes, I'm a scholar, and if you're not, you've got no business editing wiki articles." I have no bussiness editing wiki articles? for your information and from wiki itself: Welcome to Wikipedia,the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Also here may help you retract your idiotic statement. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction . Are you going to retract from those comments?.67.85.126.95 (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can edit. But dishonest edits and unfactual edits and misleading edits and edits that involve misreading of the source material get changed. Scholars try to avoid mistakes that that. Contrivance (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great change of tune. Are you talking about your dishonets edits? and what do you mean with "Scholars try to avoid mistakes that that." OH, ok is another mistake on your part. Is ok for you to fixit. If only you will do the same with your edits on the article. Mr. Scholar.67.85.126.95 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

JAZZ2006 EDITS

How do you go about deleting properly sourced links that shows Rodriguez being involved with the amnesty program at the top page? Please put those back before I revert the whole thing back. Thanks.Celeronel (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

They weren't deleted. They were moved to "Other Events". Contrivance (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the line on the top block should say "traveled around talking about conspiracy theories, his experiences on 9/11 and Disaster Management." Even we may disagree on his credentials, there are ample links that supports this role. Thanks.Celeronel (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how did the admins miss the "Celeronel" user id when they were getting rid of some of Rodriguez's latest sockpuppets recently? Must have been an oversight. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

Well, jazz2006 did it again. She removed the citation request from the 9/11 Commission. Provided no supporting evidence requested on that paragraph and changed it one sided, like always. How dishonest.67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a contentious issue at all. It is widely known that the 9/11 Commission interviewed ~1200 people in ~10 countries, and this information is available in the commission's report itself. That's why it doesn't require a separate citation. Are you seriously contending that this is an issue? Seriously? {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)}

Contrivance Idiotic Edits and use of dubious links

Your line saying: "and in internet forums about the fact that the only evidence for most of Rodriguez' claims was his own testimony." should be removed. No internet forum information can be used as wiki pedia material. You have done this repeatedly in the past. You have been pointed by many opn this on both sides of the argument and you still continue to do it. I give you the oportunity to rectify it. Otherwise we can start again the whole process of going back and forth.67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Internet forum stuff may not be a good verifiable source for facts, but the forum is the only way to establish the existence of controversy within the forum. Contrivance (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

what??????. Listen to yourself. It is ok to discuseed it here in the discussion page. It is not ok to post it on the article. Please remove it.67.85.126.95 (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Can Contrivance post the questions that were raised by the Herald of Glasgow? Also Contrivance complained about the CNN quotes calling them misleading etc. No concenscus was reached on it. It should be placed back. If not, we have found a lot of inconsistencies on the Herald article were they also get a lot of the facts wrong. Making the article unusable as well. We received a copy of the full presentation of Rodriguez in Glasgow and my oh my , going through it they have a lot of errors atributed to him. Once we finish, we will post it as a counter argument to your Glasgow posting. Fair enough?67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Glasgow Herald article raised not a question but a point: WR's claims are not supported by any evidence other thanhis own testimony. What errors are in the Glasgow Herald review? The fact remains that WR has no evidence for his claims except his claims. The CNN quote is misleading, as I've explained many times. Contrivance (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And we wil prove the herald is misleading as well.67.85.126.95 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do prove that the Herald's statement is false that the only evidence for WR's claims is his own testimony. Please do. Contrivance (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Herald made false statements about his testimony. Getting the facts wrong, invalidates the article per your CNN statements. I will prove those statements with the video excerpts as soon as tit is digitized and posted. Wait and you will receive. By the way do not choose and pick what the Herald is right about. I will be using your same statements on the CNN article to reinforce that the Herald indeed got several things wrong and therefore is not valid. Your game. Will play by your rules now.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What false statements did the Herald make? How do you know they are false? Were you at the Glasgow show? How does a false statement invalidate the article? How does it invalidate the point that WR's claims lack supporting evidence other than his own testimony? Is that a false statement? If so, can you prove it's false? Contrivance (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The CNN article was not invalidated on the basis of false statements. The CNN article was not invalidated at all. The problem with the CNN article is that the statement that WR "climbed the upper levels" was misleading. Contrivance (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly and we will show how many parts are misleading of the article. I was not on the Glasgow event, but it was filmed on its entirety, He was introduced by Annie Machon and this happen after a Peace Group had their conference on the same venue before Rodriguez's speech. I have been supplied with the tape and have been in the process of digitizing it, to show timeline specific changes from the Herald article and WR presentation. Since many parts are misleading.... well you know the drift.67.85.126.95 (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind please answering the questions instead of making claims that your uncheckable evidence will be perfected soon? You said you found a lot of errors. Just tell us the errors. Who needs your digital evidence? Support your statement! The Herald article is completely consistent with the shows WR gave on Dutch TV and the LA 2006 symposium and the LA 2007 Emanuel program. Contrivance (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Very lame attempt to bait me. May I remind you that I am not on your schedule?67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Asking you to answer questions and support your statements is baiting you. Contrivance (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so Mr. Scholar-Contrivance, we just have different schedules and I do not go spewing nonsense like you unless I have all the information and the permission necesary to support them publicly. You will have to wait dear Mr. Scholar.67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrivance somehow believes he is the only one editing here.

In a post admitting that you can't prove your claim that the Herald "made false statements", you maintain you do not go spewing nonsense? Can you spell "ironía"? Contrivance (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, your belief is logically flawed that finding an error in the Herald's report of the Glasgow presentation somehow discredits its observation that the only evidence for WR's claims is his claims. Contrivance (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly your view of the CNN quotes. Fairness again.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong on that. I don't disqualify the CNN quote because some other information in the article is mistaken. As far as I know, none of the information in the CNN article is mistaken. I disqualify the CNN quote because if it's taken out of context, it's misleading. Contrivance (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to disqualify anything? There was no conscensus and it will be recovered eventually. The quote will stay and you can place a supporting counter balance to it if you want.67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to clog the article with misleading quotes, and then explanations of what the truth is. That's bad writing. Contrivance (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what you have been doing with the article, bloating it with stupid nonsense.

Since Contrivance is using "internet forum" gossip to make a point on the initial part of the article, we want to have the same right to use "internet forum" Gossip to show some of the support and talk about Rodriguez and the victims he helped. Fair enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The point being made was simply that there was questioning of the veracity of WR's stories. Contrivance (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And the other point is that many others support him and it will be shown as a companion quote to yours.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the questions in internet forums included statements from people questioning WR's veracity and people defending him. After this, WR quit the 9/11 Truth movement. Contrivance (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Total bullshit, Rodriguez did not leave because of internet forum questions, you have not proof of that and Rodriguez himself clarified that he is disasociating because of the stupid theories that abound there, including anti semitism. Very different point of view to yours Mr. Scholar.Listen to the radio show again.67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez does not cite any disagreements with any theories, stupid or otherwise. He complains of people in the movement attacking him. He certainly didn't disassociate himself from anti-semitism last year when he toured (twice!) with Kevin Barrett. The truth movement seems to be pretty rigourously ejecting anti-semites, including Willie's buddy Barrett. Contrivance (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lies again from you. Rodriguez has spoken against anti semitism and posted about it at the JREF website, exposing Hushfmidt and Christopher Bollyn as racists. He also has spoken publicly against Judy Woods, Morgan Reynolds and Nico Haupt No-Plane theory. Rodriguez did several presentations with Kevin Barrett and it was exclusively to introduce him(WR) and not to talk about other theories except his experience on 9/11. There you go with your accusations without merit.

And we want to make a point of counterbalance that there are 10 times as more internet sites and forums that supports Rodriguez's claims. We just playing fair counterbalance to your statements and if you still leave those lines, then we have the right to place ours to validate the other point of views through links. Fair?67.85.126.95 (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rodriguez toured with Barrett. No lie. Barrett is widely known for his unapologetic anti-semitic attitudes and his advocacy of anti-semites like Captain Eric May. Contrivance (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now there is no evidence supporting WR's claims other than WR's own testimony--except his claim that he went back into the towers when his supervisor told him not to is supported by an interview with Mr. Saltalamacchia. NOT ONE WEBSITE IN THE UNIVERSE provides evidence other than WR's own testimony supporting the grandiose claims for which he is famous (15 single-handed rescues and hundreds saved by his Key of Hope). Ten Willie-glorifying websites ENDORSING his claims is not evidence SUPPORTING his claims. A scholar understands that. What's this "we" business? Are you all members of the Willie fan club? [User:Contrivance|Contrivance]] (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fan Club? HA, even handed fairness after checking you claims. So how many people he saved from those 15 according to you?67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that WR single-handedly rescued anyone. Apparently he had help getting Mr. Giambanco and the other guy out of the elevator, so that rescue was not single-handed. Evacuating Mr. David was not a rescue. There is no evidence that WR's master key saved any lives at all, let alone hundreds. Has any one from FDNY ever credited WR with saving any lives? The only one I know is Mr. Schroeder, whose tale is so twisted and impossible that you have to suspect he means it as a back-handed way of calling WR a liar. Contrivance (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction Contrivance(Mr. Scholar). Schroeder supports Rodriguez's quest for truth. The only liar here is you.67.85.126.95 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. If you're going to call me a liar, please answer my many pending questions first, lest I think you have a habit of making unsupportable claims. Please advise where I lied. What is "Supports Rodriguez's quest for truth" supposed to mean? Can you provide a reference for it so we can include it in the article? Does Mr. Schroeder endorse Willie's claims that he saved hundreds? If so, he's the only FDNY guy in the world who does, and that should definitely go in the article. Are Schroeder's dozen FDNY guys in the stairwell the fifteen people WR claims he single-handedly rescued? If so, that should go in the article too. Do you want Mr. Schroeder in the article? Sharphdmi and WTCSurvivor wanted him out. Can you provide any insight on why? Contrivance (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved some items to the "other events" were they belong. Also as discussed before at large, claims of his turning out millions or wathever publisher, is not allowed by wikipedia as noted previously by everybody else.Celeronel (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Where does wikipedia note that claims of his turning out millions are not allowed? What millions did he turn out? The publishing claims should be included because they help gauge the reliability of his other claims. They segues very nicely into the Herald comment about the unverificable nature of his claims, which then leads to WR's resignation from the Truth movement. Why do these belong in "other events"? Why does WR's resignation from the Truth Movement not belong at the top? It's the truth movement that made WR notable. Contrivance (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sir, if you go back to the whole discussion, you will notice that there was no agreement with you on this matter. Your information is included in other events with the information of the Herald because it is were it belongs. There is again a point of view by you that that is what made him notable. By reading and googling in Spanish, french and Italian, his most notable recognition was for the efforts on that day, his work for the undocumented workers and the work advocating for the victims and first responders. It is highly debatable that the issue of 9/11 truth is or was his call to fame. He was already a fixture in spanish media, before the 9/11 truth movement existed.Celeronel (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Your response as to why the claims of turning down movie deals worth millions belong in "other events" was that "it is were it belongs." Can you spell "razonamiento tautológico"? Please provide some evidence of WR's prominence in Spanish media. You provide none except your own testimony. Contrivance (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I can spell it in several languages, can you?[[1]]Also from JAZZ2006 talk page answering you ( coudn't have been clearer)"Sigh* Let me try this again. If the subject is WR's statements to the press about book deals and movie deals, my point remains the same. The only source you've cited as to these claims is Rodriguez himself, and he is not a credible source. Ergo, one would have to locate book publishers or movie producers who either corroborate or refute his claims, as these would be independent sources one way or the other. In the absence of any such sources, the use of WR's own claims is non-encyclopedic. It's just WR blowing his own horn. Even if he's lying or exaggerating, it's still just WR blowing his own horn. And non-encyclopedic. Might as well cite the National Enquirer. Also, as I said above, your analogy was flawed, and it remains so. {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)}. How many times do you have to be pointed out that he wrote a book in spanish with the help of an expert in terrorism? Celeronel (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Any idiot can spell "tautological reasoning" in several languages. Spelling it is not the point. The point is understanding what it means. You said the material about turning down the publishing deals does not belong in the opening because it belongs in "other events." You don't explain why it doesn't belong in the top, and you don't explain why it belongs in others. If Rodriguez' claims that he turned down movie deals are true, then the sacrifices are significant. If the claims are not true, then the fact that he makes the untrue claims is significant.

The fact that he published a book in Spanish and another one in Italian is hardly evidence that his claims to have turned down movie deals worth millions and publishing deals from every publisher are true. Contrivance (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well read again what you said- Can you SPELL..., now, any idiot to you can do that, when told you change to another argument. Grow up. It is explained by user Jazz2006 in her personal page and you have the strange habit of posting, in people personal pages instead of using the discussion page. Evidence was given to you about a book he has written with an expert on terrorism, before his 9/11 movement and tours that you claim. Are you calling the EFE agency (equivalent to AP) liars? 13/sept/2004 Also this is not the article so do not edit my lenghty answer to you again. Capicci?Celeronel (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You also said:"Please provide some evidence of WR's prominence in Spanish media. You provide none except your own testimony." I think it's fair and some of it can be placed on the article, Since Arthur Rubin understand spanish fluently, he may attest to the right translation from the articles, here it goes:

La Opinion- arguably the most widely read spanish newspaper in Los Angeles, refered to Rodriguez in an article title as:"The Hispanic Face of 9/11" and goes on to talk about his coverage from media all over at the time of the interview. It is also notable that it mentions Rodriguez's trips talking about Disaster Management and Motivation ( I will add the link)to the article top block).

Revista Siete (Magazine) from Canary Islands. Rodriguez is mentioned as a fighter for the immigrants and his visit to Galicia, Spain. It says:"Rodríguez ha visitado hoy A Coruña para participar en unas jornadas celebradas en la Fundación Caixa Galicia con motivo de la entrega del II Premio a la Familia Empresaria de Galicia, en las que ha impartido una conferencia "sobre cómo implementar experiencias como las del 11-S en las grandes empresas". which translated means the following, "Rodriguez today has visited The Coruña (Galicia) to participate in one of their events, celebrated at the Caixa Galicia Foundation with the motive of the II Corporate Family of Galicia Awards in which he has spoken about "How to implement the experiences of 9/11 with the Major Enterprises(Corporations)"

La Voz de Galicia,(Spain) article talks about Rodriguez involvement in helping the Hispanics and the undocumented.

El Mundo- Spanish Newspaper 2005. The article names WIlliam Rodriguez as a Robin Hood of 9/11, the article goes on to enphazise his efforts to help the community of latinos after the event and how he has lobbied for programs and benefits for the undocumented and Spanish speaking people in general.

Then a year after from El Mundo Newspaper again (9/11 06).

Executive Excellence Magazine in Spanish, Rodriguez was featured in a 6 page spread, he spoke about his experience and the lessons to be applied for Corporations.

Rodriguez spoke at the Spanish Parlament, one of the members wrote about the event at the Official Parlament blog. No talk about conspiracy.Celeronel (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You said 10/5 above "He was already a fixture in spanish media, before the 9/11 truth movement existed" but every article you cite above was published AFTER Rodriguez' 9/11 Truth European tour that was associated with Philip Berg and Jimmy Walter. Please provide some support for your claim.Contrivance (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dominican Times in 2004. The article talks about a documentary about his experiences and also on the last page it mentions the following after the usual conections with organisations already stated in the wiki article: "Rodriguez continues his strong labour in helping the affected hispanics due to 9/11. Recently, he has lobbied for a revision to the building codes at a National level and has testified for various Congresional Commissions about the troubles facing different agencies in a state of Emergency.

Television Network TelevisaIn 2004, talks about the Rodriguez involvement in accusing FBI agents of stealing relics from Ground Zero, the agent later on admitted to it.. Getting more just for you. LaterCeleronel (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. The Truth movement existed long before those articles in 2004. You said, and I quote you the second time, "He was already a fixture in spanish media, before the 9/11 truth movement existed," but not one of your cites pre-exists the 9/11 truth movement. Please provide some evidence, aside from your own testimony, that your claim is true. Contrivance (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Prove what point? Obviously I am not dishonest like you, you said again ""Please provide some evidence of WR's prominence in Spanish media." I am providing that, none of the articles talks about the 9/11 truth movement at all, so do not be so dishonest and every time you are proved wrong, do not play around and come with a different argument to wriggle out of it. First, more will be posted as I find them. Second, debunkers everywhere agree that the movement had their "real" begining on 2005. Third, your hero Mark Roberts has even said that Rodriguez began to be part of this movement after the European Tour hosted by Jimmy Walter, then, If you can find any articles that proves otherwise before his RICO lawsuit, please present it. Also when did the 9/11 movement started according to you? please provide links and do not forget the ones of Rodriguez involvement in it before it. I will post more as I get them and also looking through Youtube for information requested. Finally check some of the interviews for TV of Rodriguez on his website, specially the one of the reunion with Felipe David, it shows in timeline 1:30 the following: In the months that have passed, William has received many recognitions in different countries, among those, was Puerto Rico...Celeronel (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My point was stated in the first line of the post preceding yours: The Truth movement existed long before your 2004 articles. So now you admit that you can not support your claim that WR was a fixture in the Spanish media before the 9/11 Truth movement began, and you intend to go scouring Youtube in an effort to prove it. Your claims that I am dishonest discredit you more than me because the record shows that I have been truthful and you have made claims you can not support and have refused to explain your reasoning and refused to answer questions. Your false accusations of lying and your making of unsupported claims remind me of the earlier behaviour of 67.85.126.95.

Contrivance (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From your Hero Mark Roberts:"There was no "truth movement" early on. Some anti-Semites were early and important promoters of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Their influence lasted for years. I've provided evidence of that in this thread. That's all. The "truth" movement" didn't take off until late 2005/early 2006. Don't take my word for it: here's a poll of 9/11 truth activists conducted by the most active truther website, 911blogger.com..."Celeronel (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea Gravy is my hero? A number of 9/11 Truth groups were active in 2002, two years before your articles. (Coalition for an Independent 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Family Steering Committee, 9/11 Citizens Watch, unansweredquestions.org.) Your first coverage is in 2004. Please provide links to earlier coverage of WR. Why do you act like a lawyer serving WR instead of someone interested in serving truth? Contrivance (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From your post effort to include him on this article, remember?The 9/11 Family Steering Committee is not and was not ever part of the 9/11 truth movement. I will post more information , do not worry. It is coming.Celeronel (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I wanted to include as part of WR's history the fact that Mark Roberts wrote a report expressing skepticism about WR's claims. How does that make Roberts my hero? The Family Steering Committee is certainly part of the 9/11 Truth movement. The steering committee provieed the 300 questions for the 9/11 Commission that the widows were told would serve as a roadmap for the 9/11 Commission's investigation. Wikipedia lists 9/11 Citizens Watch, Family Steering Committee, and Jersey Girls as the three organizations of the 9/11 truth movement in the directory at the right hand side of the article page. Contrivance (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Family Steering committe, the jersey girls were not part of the 9/11 truth movement. That some so-called Truthers out there used their questions and their effort to catapult a sideline effort, does not means there were part of it. Wrong conclusion on your part there. If that it's your argument, then most of the victims and survivors were part of this movement because they wanted answers. Sadly for you many were very happy with the conclusions of the Commission. Therefore you cannot claim family groups as part of the "truth movement".Celeronel (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Family Steering Committee was not happy with the 9/11 Commission. They complained that the Commission only answered 27 of their 300 questions. Wikipedia lists the Jersey Girls and the FSC as organizations in the Truth movement. Why are you trying to prove that water is not wet?

Contrivance (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people were not happy. Does that makes them part of the 9/11 Truth movement? Sorry BG but here is it from the Family Steering Committee itself, their mission statement: "The signing of legislation implementing many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations represents a milestone for The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission (FSC). The passage of this legislation is the culmination of the efforts of the FSC and the other family members who worked with us; the 9/11 Commission; the members of Congress who sponsored the bill; their staffs; the press whose coverage provided a conduit to the American people; and each and every person who wrote, called and faxed our elected officials on these issues.

Our 12 member group officially became The Family Steering Committee in 2002, when the 9/11 Commission was created after our yearlong campaign for its formation. Our ultimate goal was to identify and subsequently correct those circumstances that contributed to the failure of our government to protect us and our loved ones. The FSC monitored the Commission’s work to the best of our ability, making every effort to ensure that it fulfilled its mandate. At times we found it necessary to demand that they revise their procedures to better achieve an in-depth, substantive, and independent inquiry. We also worked with the Commission to obtain additional funding, access to witnesses and documents, and an extension to enable the Commission to complete its mandate. When the Commission concluded its investigation, it issued a report containing 41 recommendations for improving our nation's security. The report did not answer all of our questions, but its in-depth analysis of intelligence, foreign policy, security and other failures and subsequent recommendations for improvement were reforms we could endorse. The FSC then focused our efforts on ensuring that those recommendations would be implemented. Congress responded by holding hearings and drafting legislation. After a rigorous battle, a bill incorporating many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations passed both Houses of Congress and was signed into law on December 17, 2004. After three years of work toward making America more secure, the FSC is transitioning in order to address issues such as the release of the still embargoed 9/11 CIA and FAA reports; terrorist financing; immigration reform; the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; and other issues that continue to emerge. Although the FSC as a group will no longer exist, many of us will continue to work individually and through other 9/11 related groups for these causes. In closing, our heartfelt thanks go out to the countless Americans who supported us and whose words of encouragement and recent expressions of gratitude made our difficult journey worthwhile." Hmm as far as I can see they are not talking about explosions, building 7, inside job, etc. As far as anyone can read, they actually worked with the government to implement into law many of their recommendations. Didn't you see McCain's mention of his proud work with them in the last debate? Pretty obvious that they worked together.Celeronel (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Members of the Family Steering Committee are here.

I have checked each and every one of them and could not find any allegations of the 9/11 Truth Movement, CD Theories, building 7, inside job, etc. The group was formed in November 2002 and did not started to post after the Commission started to interview witnesses etc, begining 2003.Celeronel (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? You wouldn't be trying to distract from the fact that you can't provide any links proving your claim that WR was a fixture in the Spanish media before the 9/11 Truth movement existed, would you? Wikipedia says the FSC and the Jersey Girls are organizations in the 9/11 Truth movement. Contrivance (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you call it distraction? Calling your claims bogus and providing information exactly were you are wrong? Great Scholar you claim to be!!Celeronel (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia itself:9-11 Citizens Watch is a "citizen-led watchdog network established to support independent investigation, research and analysis into the attacks of September 11th and its political and economic aftermath."The group was formed in March 2003 to monitor the work of the 9/11 Commission, and following the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report released a commentary entitled "The 9/11 Omission Report."Hmm, 2003 again.Celeronel (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And what is the significance of 2003 in your mind? None of your WR cites precede 2004. Are you ever going to answer the questions on your talk page? Citizens Watch is listed by wikipedia as a 9/11 Truth organization. Contrivance (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No answering anything on my talk page. I do it here so stop bitching over there. I am in the process of digitizing many hours of WR appeareances in Spanish after 9/11 and prior to 2003 and during his work for the community on different issues not related to the "truth movement". And I have confirmed as personal research, which you said is ok for the discussion page, of different media outlets about his prominence.Celeronel (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your insistence of bringing claims by others has been discussed with you in the past. It is also opening the door to derail this article because I will post attacking arguments against those same people you are mentioning and will ask equal answer space to post arguments of other people who disagrees with them as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celeronel (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrivance wrote: "You have that backward. I work hard to twist my views to fit the facts. I don't try to cover up the facts, as you do, to fit my wishful beliefs. My truth is the facts." Freudian slip IMHO.Celeronel (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Celeronel Edits

I don't know what "Many people objected to this CNN version of the events" means in the lead paragraph. I can only speculate that Celeronel is referring to the controversy about including the CNN quote out of context. The CNN quote is misleading because it says WR "began climbing the upper levels of the tower." WR did not climb the upper levels of the tower on 9/11. The CNN quote should not be used. Contrivance (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The CNN quote is validated and the opinions of differing views as counterbalance to make the link valid. I forgot to put the transcript from CNN. If controversy will continue with you and the quote, then I will ask for the whole article to be stricken out of the page and the actual transcripts of CNN from the day to be used.Celeronel (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no legitimate controversy about the CNN quote. It is misleading. It implies something that didn't happen. Those who defend the quote either intend to mislead readers, or they are so challenged in English that they don't understand the issue. Contrivance (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I object to the moving from the lead paragraph of the material about the Herald article, the material about the claims of movie deals turned down, and Rodriguez' resignation from the 9/11 Truth movement to "other events." These are very important events that help illustrate WR's character, and they should be in the lead paragraph. Contrivance (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I object of putting it at the top. So did others here at the discussion page. Jazz also did not agree for lack of encyclopedic value.

Arthur Rubin has been posting here so you may have a shot of getting him to support you on this. Since no agreement was reached with you. I compromised and put it at the other events instead of deleting it.Celeronel (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify your objection to putting the material at the top. Your "compromise" is a false one because there is no basis for deleting this important information. Jazz's objection to inclusion of the statement was a kneejerk one based on his general objection to WR's self-promoting claims. Here we have a claim similar in nature to Shayler's claims that is significant regardless of its veracity. Contrivance (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions Celeronel is Very Slow to Answer

Please explain why you want to include a quote from CNN that is highly misleading. By WR's own account, he never climbed above 39. CNN's statement that he climbed to "upper levels" is not true. Contrivance (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote was removed and all mentions of the article as well.67.85.126.95 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I note you put the misleading quote back in again. Please advise why you want to include misleading quotes. Contrivance (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote was removed and all mentions of the article as well.67.85.126.95 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Why do you insist on including misleading quotes? Contrivance (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading to you, but not to me. It should be reinstated. It comes from CNN and it is sourced. I want it back in there.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The CNN quote is misleading to anyone who reads it. It says WR climbed upper levels. He didn't even climb to middle levels. Contrivance (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not misleading, if he was on the basement then the upper floor are from the lobby up. It was removed but since you are still bitching about it, it should be reinstated.Celeronel (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading. The upper floors are the upper floors. The floors above the lobby are the lower floors, the floors around the fiftieth floor are the middle floors, and the upper floors are the 80th floor up. Contrivance (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You share a habit of some earlier editors who have since been banned or blocked. You don't answer questions. Contrivance (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a tendency to be a pest and repetitous, you get answers and then go around and twist the answers to get more answers. Your bitching is getting ridiculous.67.85.126.95 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

When I don't get answers, I bitch. Live with it. Contrivance (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Bitch.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You have your answers at the discussion page. If you intend to harass in my personal page I will report you.Celeronel (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when is asking you questions on your talk page harrassment? What do you think a talk page is for? I am not harassing you, I am attempting to communicate with you. Here's some friendly advice--it's generally better not to accuse people of lying and dishonesty unless you're sure. And I'd suggest that you get a friend whose English skills are better than yours to advise you before you go making such self-discrediting accusations. I do NOT have my answers on the discussion page. That's why I ask you here. Why do you and other earlier editors refuse to answer questions, and claim that they have been answered elsewhere when they have not? Here are the questions from the discussion page you have NOT answered (and many others addressed to your predecessors have also not been answered):Where does wikipedia note that claims of WR's turning down offer of movie deals worth millions are not allowed? What millions did he turn down? Why do the points about WR's claims to have turned down movie deals worth millions, the Herald note that the only evidence for his claims is his own testimony, and his resignation from the truth movement not belong in the opening paragraph? Why do they belong in "Other events"? Your only answer is that they belong there because they belong there.Contrivance (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been told at large by everybody editing on this page and they have not reached a conscensus with you, post any evidence to the contrary. Your stupid line about book deals etc, is there and in the correct section. I also posted linnks to show that your assertion has no validity since he wrote several books on his own.67.85.126.95 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the questions. The fact that WR may have self-published a book does not change the fact that he claimed he turned down movie deals worth millions and book deals from very publisher. Willie's antisemitic buddy Kevin Barrett has published books and he doesn't claim he turned down any movie deals or book deals. Contrivance (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your answers were given to you by Jazz2006.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wathever Barrett's believes , writes and says, has nothing to do with Rodriguez.67.85.126.95 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Willie toured twice with Barrett after Barrett was already famous for expressing support for holocaust denial. When has Willie ever criticized Barrett? When did Willie ever "distance himself" from Barrett's anti-semitism, tolerance for the looniest of 9/11 theories, and advocacy of violence? Contrivance (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Has Willie ever said something about Holocoust denial? supported it? Good luck proving that accusation implied by you. Willie sent an email to Mark Roberts denouncing Anti semitism. Ask Roberts or check the JREF forum. He also denounce Hufshmidt and Bollyn as antisemites. Look for it aon their archives. Since this is about Willie then prove your accusations. He has spoken about many of this things on Radio Interviews, go and find it on the Alex Jones archives.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. By traveling with Barrett, WR implicitly endorsed him. Don't send me fishing for non-existent evidence to support YOUR claims. Contrivance (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Schoolar you are. Great researcher. You did not answer my question. Has Willie mentioned Holocoust denial? Anti-semitic statements?. Support your claims also that Barrett spoke about those things while introducing William. Celeronel (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop putting stupid words in my mouth. Barrett was (and is) famous for his endorsement of holocaust deniers. Willie toured with him twice. Did Willie ever distance himself from Barrett? Contrivance (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please support your claim that "He was already a fixture in spanish media, before the 9/11 truth movement existed" What did you mean when you wrote "Many people objected to this CNN version of the events" in the opening paragraph? Contrivance (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been given this information on Contricance Edits Section of this page and more information will be put forward as we digitize some of the supporting coverage. My apologies that is not fast enough for you but last time I checked, I did not work for you.67.85.126.95 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. You haven't supported your claims, and you won't explain your strange statement about the CNN. Contrivance (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have and you bitch anyway because you do not like the answers. CNN is misleading to you, but not to me. It should be reinstated. It comes from CNN and it is sourced. I want it back in there.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The CNN quote is misleading to anyone who reads it. Obviously you are interested in something other than truth. Contrivance (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cnn quote is not misleading, you may have a problem understanding it or digesting it. It should be reinstated.Celeronel (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Very simple it connects to a website, that posts videos like youtube. Without consent of C-Span that this could be distributed freely you cannot use it under wikipedia rules. That is also why youtube and google video is also not accepted unless the disclaimer is linked and quoted. Feel free to ask the experts here ( admins). Now post your evidence that this is usable. If you want I can ask for you.67.85.126.95 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Why are you so determined to protect Willie from his own words? Contrivance (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the page of idiotic attempts by you to derail, defame and inply.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it that Willie's own words derail and defame? Contrivance (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions like always.Celeronel (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And one new question: What makes you think C-Span is copyrighted? Why are you trying to keep WR's own words out of the wiki? Why do you think it is not important that on 9/11 WR said "rumble" and then in his magic show he says "BOOM!"Contrivance (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Very simple it connects to a website, that posts videos like youtube. Without consent of C-Span that this could be distributed freely you cannot use it under wikipedia rules. That is also why youtube and google video is also not accepted unless the disclaimer is linked and quoted. Feel free to ask the experts here ( admins). Now post your evidence that this is usable. If you want I can ask for you.67.85.126.95 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please post supporting evidence that this is allowed at wikipedia and I will reconsider it. Magic Show? Now you are getting down right cynical, aren't you?67.85.126.95 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. You're the one that claims quoting material from C-Span is a copyright violation. Support your claim. Contrivance (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

From C-Span's own website: This generally unrestrictive policy regarding non-commercial use does not apply to (i) original programs created by C-SPAN, (ii) video coverage of privately sponsored events, and (iii) video coverage of other events not sponsored by the federal government. 67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Very simple it connects to a website, that posts videos like youtube. Without consent of C-Span that this could be distributed freely you cannot use it under wikipedia rules. That is also why youtube and google video is also not accepted unless the disclaimer is linked and quoted. Feel free to ask the experts here ( admins). Now post your evidence that this is usable. If you want I can ask for you.67.85.126.95 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask. Why do you want to protect Willie from his own words? Contrivance (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

and again, from C-Span's own website: This generally unrestrictive policy regarding non-commercial use does not apply to (i) original programs created by C-SPAN, (ii) video coverage of privately sponsored events, and (iii) video coverage of other events not sponsored by the federal government.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Obvious problems with Contrivance. I am very surprised he has not been banned yet!Combatant (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind being specific, or are the reasons for your opinions a secret? Unlike some people around here I don't lie, or try to intimidate, or refuse to answer questions, make claims I can't back up, try to insert misleading material, or repeatedly make unjustified deletions simply out of fact-allergy. Contrivance (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You do seem like a liar. You repeteadly put misleading information already specified by others. You constantly link to websites not accepted by wikipedia rules. Unreliable sources. I just saw your latest edits and you have linked to blogs and to a website that violates the GFDL rules. Examples are the powerhour link, the Barrett info on a blog link, as some examples. No wonder you keep getting reverted and accused of vandalism!82.44.232.17 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I seem like a liar? What's that supposed to mean? Did I lie or didn't I? Maybe I seem to you to be a liar because you are unfamiliar with the facts of the Rodriguez case. I have not put any misleading information in. A wiki global principle is "Ignore All Rules," and a corollary of that is "wikilawyering doesn't work." A number of editors of this page who have been banned have attempted to limit information they considered objectionable by wikilawyering. I have for instance had conflicts with people because I want to link Barrett's press releases about Rodriguez--which are only available on Barrett's website. They are part of the Rodriguez story, and the editors completely miss the point that Barrett's site is not being used as a reliable source to establish any issue of fact, except that it is a source for the press release that he issued. The powerhour link is the only source for the information that Willie resigned from the Truth movement. It's important information that should be in the article, and if you have information that it's not true, then please change the article on the basis of fact, and not on the basis that the source is not allowed. Contrivance (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So it is unreliable and not acepted by wikipedia. I took the whoole thing out until you come up with an acepted link with permission to use.Celeronel (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See wiki page on Fair Use, Mr.Wikilawyer. Why do you act like WR's lawyer instead of a truth seeker? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:FAIRUSE It's not like I'm displaying a copyrighted image or streaming copyrighted music. It's fair use. Contrivance (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

From the same page quoted:Applied to Wikipedia Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. Uploading an image file, audio or video file, or text quotation into Wikipedia, and adding that file to a project page, both raise copyright concerns. Editors who do either must make sure their contributions are legal. If there is any doubt as to legality, ask others for help, try to find a free equivalent, or use your own words to make the same point. Also, consider asking the copyright holder to release the work under an appropriate GFDL license. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a sample form letter."Celeronel (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't upload anything. I only linked it. Fair use. Why do you work so hard to obstruct the truth? Contrivance (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you work so hard by twisting stuff with your personal views? What is your truth?Celeronel (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when is trying to cite WR's own words--on ABC news, at his 9/11 Truth presentations, and on his own website--"twisting stuff"? I work hard to twist my views to fit the facts. I don't try to cover up the facts, as you do, to fit my wishful beliefs. My truth is the facts. I'm sorry that the facts about Willie are so troubling to you, but those are the facts. I didn't make the facts. I'm just reporting them. Contrivance (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

you did not make them, you twisted them.67.85.126.95 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Celeronel Changes Seem to be Based on Personal Knowledge, which is of course much less reliable than is original research, because presumably original research has some kind of documentary evidence to support it

Celeronel seems to feel she can simply decree that the Ireland Machon/Shayler/Rodriguez events never happened, even though there is evidence that they were planned and promoted, and there is no evidence other than Celeronel's claims and the claims of another, banned, editor that they didn't happen.

Celeronel seems to think she can look into Willie's heart and tell us why he resigned from the 9/11 truth movement.

Celeronel's deletion of the observation that Willie, an uncommonly handsome man in those days, worked as a lonely sweeper of emergency stairwells through several years of unprecedented prosperity and economic opportunity does not jibe with her inclusion of the puffy California Chronicle piece that in a clumsy way says the same thing, that William is an humble man with unusual spiritual resources. Invoking William's meditative years in the stairwell better sets the stage for an understanding of his self-sacrifice and his spiritual journey to Islam than does any amount of silly admirers' spew. Contrivance (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrivance Insistence on Attacking Others that Do Not Agree With Him

Contrivance has looked into every possible ploy to pick a fight with others that do not agree with him. He has been a pest at harrassing other users with constant posting on their pages to make his point. Sadly nobody seems to agree with him. His claims are demolished by those involved in the editing of the page in more than one occassion. He also insist that having knowledge of the facts does not constitute research. He has constantly flooded the talk page with his nonsense. He has constantly engage in an edit war with others. He has missused the coments of edits Section regularly. He claims to know what is in the heart of Rodriguez and implies that he knows what WR feels internally. I have personal knowledge of many events because of my early involvement with looking into 9/11. And yes, I was involved last year with the Ireland Group and left after too much bickering inside their organisation. So, wether you like it or not, Rodriguez never went to Ireland, dropped Shyler after 2 presentations and never retook those dates there. there was also internet information about it, I will look for Cached pages. Your insistence on pushing to link 9/11 websites, is idiotic and you have been told to stop it as well. Finally , let me clarify that I am not any longer involved in the 9/11 truth movement after reading and researching on my own. I do still regard Rodriguez as a unique person that has been attacked unfairly by people like you. YOu are not fair and Neutral in your point of views and your lack of respect to other people is not acceptable.Celeronel (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My constant posting is to ask questions, to request the rationale for the edits, to defend my edits, to try to arrive at consensus. You call it harassment. How can you think an anonymous editor should be allowed to post from personal knowledge? I might as well claim I'm the ghost of Anne Bollyn and post on the Henry VIII page!

If you are Irish that would explain your inability to grasp the significance of the Clinton prosperity. Parts of town that had been really bad forever were suddenly full of new stores, new lights, well-dressed people. Anybody could have any job they wanted. It got to be a problem because you'd have long lines in the drug stores when the clerks didn't know how to count change. So why a super-salesman like Willy, a movie-star handsome one at that, would stay cooped up in a stairwell month after month, year after year, points to Willie's unusual character. For you to delete this by calling it speculation is absurd. The Clinton prosperity is a verifiable fact.

Matter of personal experience, do you disagree with recognized economists? If you do not fix it, we can then add this links as counterarguments,here and here. Obviously your speculation is absurd.67.85.126.95 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What is not verifiable is Celeronel's claim that there was no Shayler/Machon/Rodriguez gig in Ireland, the speculation that Kenny Johanneman's alleged suicide had something to do with Willy's resignation from the Truth movement, and Willy's claim that Gage's people were attacking him. I wanted to put a separate section in about Johanneman, but Willie's fleas objected at the time.

Proved wrong again by Annie Machon herself. You obviously lacked the hearing skills on the same link you offered. Since you said it was ok to do originall research here, on the talk page, I have taken the liberty to contact Mr. Dave Von Kleist about the statements of the show and he agreed with the assertion that it was due to Kevin's death. There is more coming on the radio show in the future, the link you posted its an illegal link. Go to the thepowerhour.com and link correctly and legally. I welcome you to contact the same people. Do not worry, I will not post it on the main page.67.85.126.95 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason to link to 9/11 websites is to post information on Willie's activities within the 9/11 Truth movement, and the controversy that he inspired there. If Willie repents of those activities, too bad. What makes you think I'm attacking Willie? If I said he had tuberculosis (and if he did) would that be an attack? If I point out that his claims are not in the realm of reality (and they're not) how is that an attack? You're a fine one to talk about lack of respect. You repeatedly call me a liar, and you won't back up or discuss your claims. If you want respect, then start acting like someone who deserves it. Contrivance (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dishonest Edits from Contrivance

Why do you put back on the heading block the book argument? Why you "forgot" to include the counter argument that he wrote books? How come you changed decorated ( he was decorated by the Senate) to "received"? 67.85.126.95 (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Characterising my edits as dishonest is accusing me of bad faith. Please abide by wiki rules. Also, I note that you have threatened to "out" Jazz and he no longer edits here. Clean up your act, please. The book claim is not an "argument" it's a "quote." It's something WR said more than once. The fact that he wrote books is not a counterargument to the fact that he claimed to have turned down movie deals worth millions. I changed "decorated" to "received" because clearly the term "decorated" in that small town UK newspaper was based on information from Willie. If there is any non-Willie corroboration that he was "decorated," please provide it. BTW, when are you going to finish digitizing the video to back up your claim that the Glasgow Herald article was erroneous?Contrivance (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dishonest. Why don't you go crying out again, asking for me to be banned like you did to others that disagree with your edits? About outing people- It will be extremely naive on your part to believe it cannot happened to you, counting with the many "experts" whose knwoledge investigating is bigger than yours. Not a threat but a fact that there is people with more expertise. If governments can intercept your emails, and trasnmisions in and out, if forensic online investigation is a fact of life after 9/11, what makes you so "special" to be singled out? This could be an argument for another article. What makes you think Jazz is a he? The book claim is exactly the same argument that you give about the "hick" statement you made of the newspaper, information not mentioned that was provided by Rodriguez, read it again, and again until you comprehend. Now, please put back the counter argument exactly under your statements or the edit will be reverted for npov ,your opinions are not backed up except by statements you are already complaining about. You have to prove there is no corroboration. Pllease provide it with links. BTW, I am finish digitizing the Glasgow (not a hick town)interview. Just waiting for permission from the organizers and Rodriguez to post it online. You see, different from you, we follow the Copywright rules. Do please put back "decorated" from the (as you called it)"hick" newspaper, until you find an opposing article. Thanks.67.85.126.95 (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hint: Don't be a dick Contrivance (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hint: Don't be a Fuckheadfrom your Don't be a dick.67.85.126.95 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try to harvest my IP address from your friend's blog. Stop being a creep. Contrivance (talk) 06:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try to get me to comment on techniques and technologies. Isn't creep a word used for you in the past?67.85.126.95 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Contrivance (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please advise what was unfair and speculative about my edits of 12-29-08. Also what is wrong with the tone of the article. I don't think there was anything unfair and speculative about them and I suspect that you are simply fact-averse with respect to William Rodriguez. Many people are. Contrivance (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your tone is one of mockery.Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it easy for you. Here are my edits:

I changed "recently" to "sometime in 2008"Contrivance

'sometime is speculative.'Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the fact that the deleted claim of single-handed rescues was featured on the website next to a paypal button.Contrivance

Mockery again and it is not next to paypal button. It is a tone to ridicule.Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I specified the date of the NIST testimony to help it fit better in a testimony timeline.Contrivance

'No problem there, I will reinstate it.'Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the observation that Rodriguez' lawsuit did not allege that he had witnessed any explosions.Contrivance

Speculative, since he is known for not being a witness but for "experiencing" explosions.Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the important point that in the internet article (Scoop) where Rodriguez is first alleged to have claimed there were explosions, the reporter relies on Greg Szymanski's hearsay report of what Rodriguez said.Contrivance

Greg Szymanski's hearsay or writtings are not aceptable sources. As I understand, Rodriguez attacked him in the past for some of his writtings. Scoop is not aceptable.Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence putting the 8/07 quote on the explosions into its context. Do you deny that Rodriguez' audiences were enthralled?Contrivance

This is your opinion and point of viewCombatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I added further context to the claim of the 22-story collapse--the information that Rodriguez was four floors beneath the alleged collapse zone. I added the point that Rodriguez also said he heard the plane hit tower two about that time. That's important, I'm sure you know, because the plane hit the south tower at 9:03, 17 minutes after the plane hit the north tower.Contrivance

Right on the time wrong on the delivery, Rodriguez stated quite clearly, in the C-Span Special that at that moment(39th floor) that's what he believed, and emphatically clarifies "not that it was! but that's what I thought afterwards" time stamp 01:39.50 to 01:40:13 dispelling any doubts. He was not close to any windows and "speculated" wrongly but openly admits it as a mistake.Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I replaced legalistic "prior to" language with vernacular "before," and removed "it is claimed" from information cited from a NY Daily News article. Are you saying the Daily News is not a reliable source?Contrivance

Can you clarify who is speaking to the Daily News? apparently they had different sources for the story.Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I replaced "Like" with the more grammatical "As was the case" and removed the redundant "only".Contrivance

"Like" was the correct one.Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I added information on the Good Karma Humanitarian award, adding that Good Karma endorsed Rodriguez's claim of 15 single-handed rescues.Contrivance

Good Karma is a Public Relations company that has worked with or for Rodriguez as a paid event organizer, therefore is not acepted as a wikisource.Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Now what was speculative or unfair about any of that? Contrivance (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There you have it.Combatant (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is the tone mockery?Contrivance

Here we go, Contrivance, you have been told numerous times about your tone. I am not the first one. Your writting tone is one of demeaning. Look for instance your past edits about his mission, how about your nitpickins of his presentations. The page leaves much more to be desired in context and tone.Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sometime" is not speculative in the least. Sometime between 2/08 when the last wayback archive was made and December, the claim to 15 rescues was deleted. I happen to know it was late in the year, but I can't prove it.Contrivance

You said it, you cannot prove it. My point.Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What is mocking about pointing out that the claim was next to (and slightly below) the paypal buton? It's a technical observation. Also one of some legal consequence, as I'm sure you're aware.Contrivance

Technical? It is not even important. Your tone is to try to push pins that he asks for donations to do his mission, it is pretty evident.Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this phony distinction you make between being "a witness" and "experiencing"? Experiences are what make a witness. How does the distinction make the observation that Rodriguez' claim of experiencing explosions was not in the lawsuit "speculative"?Contrivance

Many others already pointed out that there was never discovery process in the lawsuit. Others pointed out, with links, his statements against the lawsuit and the lawyer. He experienced an event, he was a witness, but not a witness to an explosion from a bomb itself. He clearly says on many videos that he is not an expert on explosives and he speculates about that, but his problem is that this explosions were not investigated.Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If Scoop and Szymanski are not acceptable, take them out. Fine with me. Then the first time Rodriguez alleges that he "experienced" explosions is moved all the way up to 8/07, the C-Span--unless we can find an acceptable source for the 2006 show. I inserted my change to try to be fair to Willie by pointing out Szymanski was his mouthpiece. Contrivance

"You called Szymanski his mouthpiece. The first time he mentioned that he experience "explosion" was on CNN en Español on the afternoon of 9/11. Sadly we cannot use copyright CNN videos but you can find it on "The Last Man Out"-Final Cut-documentary. I saw it at the LA Film Festival, it is apparently still on the film festivals circuit so we will have to wait for the actual copy. A note is that he has many of the victims that he helped in it. Let's wait until it is available and you can poke your satirical fun to it.Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is my opinion (and experience--and many people have told me) that Willie's audiences are "enthralled". Do you deny that it's a fact?Contrivance

Yes, I have seen him and I am not enthralled, I admire what he did, but not to be enthralled by his ability as a speaker.Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about the time of 9:03 for the 22-story collapse. If Rodriguez admits he was wrong about the time, why don't we put that in. Isn't that significant that in June 2006 in LA, almost five years after the event, he was so confused about the facts?Contrivance

And the fact that he received more than 2 hours on C-Span to tell every detail. Even the ones that was missed by the 2006 event where there were many speakers and all of them given an alloted time slot. Nitpicking again isn't it?Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your quibble about the Daily News sources. Are you saying we need to check them? How does that make my edits speculative and unfair?Contrivance

Because you are speculating about who said what.Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Like" is wrong. You can say "Like A, B" if the two things are comparable. "Like Roger, George was reckless." But here you're saying "Like most witnesses, Rodriguez' evidence was private." You're not talking about Roger and George, you're talking about people and evidence. Apples and Oranges.Contrivance

Personal interpretation.Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Good Karma you really don't get the concept, do you? Good Karma is not a good source for facts, I agree--except they are excellent evidence on the awards they give. Same thing with Barrett--he's am excellent source on the press releases he wrote. Why do you want to keep the Humanitarian award out? Contrivance (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it? do you? This is not about Good Karma or the stupid awards they give, this is not about your nemesis Kevin Barrett either. Is out because as you mentioned "Good Karma is not a good source for facts"Combatant (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Combatant

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)

..."well-respected clients like Barrie Zwicker, Richard Gage etc." Last time we checked, Richard Gage organization was in the list named as part of Homegrown terrorism. Everybody that works there should be investigated, connections in SF and TX, etc. BG is back, this is going to be interesting again. Peace truce ended, I guess. I thought you left your job...or was it ..fired? Something to do of not agreeing to some support to people you hate?67.85.126.95 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)