William Rodriguez ~ What the janitor knows

@gazlan wrote:

When is an explosion not an explosion?

The answer appears to be ~ when many professional people say they are, including firefighters and rescue workers. . . . . Funny old world aint it?

All those examples are on the day, when people were scared, confused, and in the middle of what could have been a warzone, for all they knew. Of course they’ll say ‘explosions’. Get me some CREDIBLE proof, please?

@gazlan wrote:

Meanwhile, as is shown, George Bush claims the video of Bin Laden confessing to 9/11 is without doubt infallible yet we have old Dicko telling us some years later that no proof has been established.

Can our resident ‘ debunker ‘ debunk this anomaly for us i wonder ?

He can. :)

Now, here’s a question, similar to the one that I asked during the ‘man on the moon’ debate (which oddly, was never answered…)

How many people, conservatively, would need to have been ‘in the know’ for the events of 9/11 to have transpired how they did?

@gazlan wrote:

Many of the people who WITNESSED explosions are clearly experienced with such events. They sound like explosions quite simply because the PROFESSIONALS say they are as well as the media, eye witnesses and fbi ahents. Don’t you believe the Govt workers?

Tell you what, YOU go into the middle of a disaster zone, escape with your life, running like hell, then have a microphone shoved in your face THEN make sense. Won’t happen.

Heat of the moment stuff.

There were NO demolition jobs on 9/11. At all.

@gazlan wrote:

A play on words, the building had already been cleared of fireifghters.

Choosing to ignore the obvious again? He said “pull it” on national television. If he meant, for it to be demolished, that’s his insurance claim done.

Can’t have it both ways.

Is he an insurance fraud (caught on telly too!) or are people misunderstanding what he said, (and again, I’ll remind you that no demolition company uses the words ‘pull it’ to mean what you think it means).

:D

@gazlan wrote:

You and others can debunk as much as you will. . . Let us concentrate on the facts.

This will be a first. Go on then, I’m game.

@gazlan wrote:

The CRUCIAL evidence was removed very fast without independent scrutiny and examination.

Much of it remains. And none of it holds any evidence that this was caused by anything other than the official story.

@gazlan wrote:

The financial gain made by the owner/controller because the building’s demise was huge.

Which he must have plotted with the US government (who must’ve arranged for the aircraft jets) and then confess all on TV? Hahaha. OK, so how is he involved in the Pentagon collision and the Pennsylvania crash?

@gazlan wrote:

The official investigation failed to test for high explosives despite being requested by professionals.

As I said before, why would they test for something that couldn’t possibly be there? I used the Care Bear analogy before, so won’t do it again as it appeared the point was missed.

And, again, be honest. You would not be happy if an independent enquiry decreed that there was no explosions because “they’ve been ‘got at’ by the Government”. Sometimes you just have to let people rant and shout at the moon.

@gazlan wrote:

There’s many more that simply cannot be debunked which i will eventually list, this will give you your chance of glory ~ be patient and we will see.

Ooo, can’t wait. 8) :twisted: