Talk:William Rodriguez

message: What viewpoints are missing and what can we do about it?  Why don't the people complaining about missing viewpoints specify what they are and arrange to provide them?  Contrivance (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can't support the claim of missing viewpoints, maybe that template should be removed. Contrivance (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   Deleted templates on missing viewpoints.  If you won't discuss the issue, why should the template be up there?  Contrivance (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Viewpoints

message: No discussion of the lack of worldwide view has taken place.  Willie's advocates have instead chosen to attack me in this section.  Please provide substantive comment supporting the template.  Contrivance (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous, your lack of understanding the media is apparent. If you are live and told you have only a minute, 3 seconds or 10 seconds to tell your story in a capsule, this does not negates or eliminates his full version of the events. Your lack of understanding media is apparent. Stick to Architects and computers.07:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What worldwide views are missing?  How is my alleged lack of understanding of media pertinent?  When are you going to provide the Spanish TV evidence that shows how Willie's US media presentations were edited?  When are you going to finish digitizing the Glasgow presentation and show how the Herald is wrong?  Contrivance (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your lack of understanding is pertinent due to your speculative tone. Otherwise we can point that out on thwe article as well.Glasgow is already digitized, just waiting from permission to make it available. Unlike you, I wait for the copyright owners to agree. They all there you just have to llok for them. Combatant (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   "Speculative tone" belongs under "Inappropriate tone" above, not here under "worldwide view".  So now we have two responses from two editors that don't address the question.  So let's see--Willie can't provide evidence for his case about the Spanish media because of copyright laws, and can't provide evidence for his case about the people he saved because of victims' rights laws, and he won't provide any evidence about his lawsuit allegations because he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.  Where are the 27 witnesses he said he would provide top the 9/11 Commission?  Where are the 14 people in the ABM office he said would corroborate his story of the pre-impact blast?  Contrivance (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see, since we are the ones editing here and not Rodriguez's, you still go around putting statements on his lips about copyrights etc. So you are a member of the investigation and you are requesting the confidential list? Who are you to request his sources? how naive pervert.67.85.126.95 (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you won't answer the questions, eh?  I'm not putting words in Willie's lips.  You're the ones who made the claims I cited above.  Who am I to request the sources for Willie's claims?  I'm nobody, just an humble wikipedia editor and servant of truth trying to find verifiable information to support the claims he has verifiably made on his website, in statements to the press, and in presentations around the world.  Contrivance (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, a nobody. Keep looking for verifiability. Just remember this is not a forum or a place for your agendas.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try to bring your petgoat from DU here. This is not a blog, forum or your personal page to bring your agenda. Is like me going over there and exposing you.67.85.126.95 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of worldwide view

message: I've heard that Willie claims an email list of 65,000 names, so why he can't get a competent advocate for him in here and has to tolerate the aid of someone like 67.85.126.95 ("old 95") I don't know. 
Rodriguez does not control me and neither you. I choose were to write and you do not own wikipedia. Willie can care less what we do here. But I feel your agenda to attack him is a constant one and the need to correct your tone , insinuations and lack of respect. You get the same type of actions that you have done to others.67.85.126.95 (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Can't Willie get any Competent Help?

message: Restored ref to PayPal button because it provides a clue as to why William removed the claim of the fifteen single-handed rescues from his website.
Restored WR's claim that he raised 122 million dollars.  That's what El Mundo says, and WR made that claim in Los Angeles at the Symposium.  
Removed "publicly" because it unjustifiably implies that WR did so privately.
Comment about evidence in RICO suit restored to something like original as written some time ago by Jazz.  More than one editor has pointed out that no evidence has been provided.
Restored comment that claims about movie deals and publishing deals have never been corroborated.
Restored link to globalresearch.  Combatant is confusing globalresearch with global outlook.
Removed added British press quotes.  That level of detail is not needed in the lede graf.  The point about the "poster boy" is lede material.
Removed ref to paypal. It does not provides any clue but in your mind and your speculations. Your intent is apparent mockery.Combatant (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:   Your arguments are bogus and can with equal invalidity be applied to all kinds of absurd actions.  William said at the Los Angeles Symposium that he raised $122 million dollars.  Are you calling him a liar?  "Publicly" is not appropriate because it makes an unjustified implication.  "No way to prove otherwise" is irrelevant.  Discovery process is irrelevant.  William provided no evidence EVER.  No evidence corroborating Willie's claims that he turned down movie deals and book deals exists.  The British media quotes do not "balance" the statement that Willie was "poster boy."  Contrivance (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: El Mundo does not, anywhere, quote him directly. He represented 9/11 for many in the Latino community and was involved in the PSA's and the board of the 9/11 United Services Group that not only collected funds but also provided programs for the victims. Publicly is not a contention but a statement of balance. That you are not privy to information does not means government agencies do not have it. He does not have to provide evidence out of court if he does not wants to. If he wants to protect tohose victims fom a circus out there related to 9/11, then more power to him. Discovery process is not irrelevant, is part of the judicial process. The British media counterbalance point of view from your angle.67.85.126.95 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody says Willie has to provide evidence.  The point is that he doesn't provide evidence.  Discovery process is irrelevant to that point because it in no way prevents him from providing evidence. The British quotes do not even address the "poster boy" issue, let alone counterbalance it.  Your arguments are not logical. Willie said in Los Angeles "I raised $122 million.  Don’t take my word for it—go on the internet.  Do your own research.  You’ll find it there."  There's no corroboration on the internet, but that's what he said.  Contrivance (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have said it. Is he obligated to do it for you? how come all those top journalists, reporters, news programs, radio shows and lawyers for the people he sued have not even bothered to question it. Is it maybe  that they checked with the right "people" or right sources and found that "your" attacks have no merits? There you go again on Discovery Process, you don't get it do you? It was a lawsuit and it never ent the full mile. He doesn't need to provide you , me or anybody but the government, that information. Are you above the rights of the victims? I don't think so. Apparently to you, he did not save anybody, correct? His claims of helping people on 9/11, never happened? White House, was just a photoshop image, the groups he helped don't exist etc. Sorry Sir but here in NY he is a media figure and the victims for what I can see, are on his side.
You have no way to counterbalance judging by your edits on Carol Bruillett's page and Kevin Barrett's. Whatever he said in LA is not the issue since it is not scholastic, encyclopedic and therefore not acepted on Wiki and you know it. 67.85.126.95 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  How can you maintain that Willie is not obligated to prove his claims?  Do you not think that for someone to travel around lying about 9/11 dishonors the dead and their families?  Shouldn't  Willie stop making claims he can't prove?  At some point common sense demands that one suppose that Willie's refusal to prove his claims is because they are not true.  What Willie said in LA us certainly an issue because it corroborates the two reports in el Mundo that Rodriguez raised 122 million dollars.  El Mundo is a reliable source.  Contrivance (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not. Were you there with him? nope. I have seen statements by Saltalamachia, Felipe David, Salvatore G. and Johanneman and they all support Rodriguez's Statements. Whatever your issue with the man ( we know already) sholud not be related to the article. El Mundo is indeed reliable . El mundo does not quotes him, so get your translation done right.67.85.126.95 (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see how you can claim that a man is not obligated to prove his hero claims.  That is central to the concepts of truth and honor, decency and civilization.  Please provide the statements by Saltalamachia, Felipe David, Salvatore G. and Johanneman that support Rodriguez's claims.  Does any of them support his claim to hundreds saved and fifteen single-handed rescues?  Does Saltalamacchia support the claim that they were pushed upward in the air and the ceiling fell down?  Saltalamacchia says he helped carry Mr. David out; Willie claims he carried out Mr. David alone with Mr. David on his back.  My issue with Mr. Rodriguez has largely grown out of the dishonesty of his friends, which poorly reflects on him.  You do not know who I am, and it is inappropriate for you to indulge in the delusion that you do. El Mundo does not quote him, but where would they get that information if not from him?  They can't get it anywhere else, and Rodriguez is on record on the DVD that he sells making the claim that he raised $122 million dollars.  Contrivance (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It is obvious that Contrivance's idea of the article is to make it his own. Use the sandbox to play. Wikipedia is not a forum and neither is the talk page.Combatant (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion page is a place for editors to work out their disputes.  My idea of the article is to tell the William Rodriguez story in an even handed way.  Your idea of the article is to obstruct the truth by wikilawyering and to remove or hide anything negative or even inconvenient.  How come none of that big sack of press coverage cites is from Venezuela?  Contrivance (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disputes that never reach an agreement with you. Your idea is not even handed, it never was, it was sarcastic, with mockery and allegations to discredit without doing a thorough research and the reader has only to go and see the archives on this page to see your level of confrontation and the bitching when it does not go your way. Wikilawyering is what makes wiki works and stay out of libel and defamation issues. Venezuela? thanks for telling me, it will be the next search. I still have more clips from other countries that I need to translate first.67.85.126.95 (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  We never reach agreement because you maintain unreasonable positions, like the opinion that Willie need not provide the public with evidence for his claims.  When are you going to finish digitizing the Glasgow appearance so you can back up your claim that the Herald is wrong?  Contrivance (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I, I have some stuff from Russia, China and Turkey. More stuff from Malaysia. I have Venezuela's paper from Isla Margarita, that was sent by another user but is not a link, is hard copy, I will digitze it and open a page archive for it.Combatant (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1/11 Changes to Combatant Edits

message: We should have a section on that because the issue is important to Willie's success.  Contrivance (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, this page is not a forum or a PR item for the third time.Combatant (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you read the article on charismatic authority?  It fits Willie to a tee, on all three legs (sanctity, heroism or exemplary character).  Sanctity: his claims of supernatural aid in locating the ladder to rescue Mr. Giambanco, his many claims that his survival was a miracle, his conversion from agnosticism to Islam.  Heroism:  his courage in running back in to a burning building despite all the explosions, and in seeking the truth despite death threats.  Exemplary character: he selflessly raises money for the victims, and winds up living under a bridge.  He's not in it for the money, and he turns down the temptation of a political career and turns down movie deals and publishing deals.  It's almost like Willie wrote his script based on Max Weber's sociological work.  Contrivance (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop your nonsense already.Combatant (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Max Weber is not nonsense.  He's one of the most profound thinkers of the 20th century, and Willie's persona fits the model like a glove.  Contrivance (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charismatic Authority 

message: Combatant made such a fuss out of the notion that book credits supported Willie's claim that he turned down book deals "from every publisher".  Now when I turn up a book in English, published in the USA, available on Amazon, for which Willie is a co-author, he wants to hide that fact.  Why?  Contrivance (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the item but it is not wikipedia acepted as a reliable source.Combatant (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You "forgot" to restore the names of the co-authors,  all of whom are well known in the 9/11 Truth movement.  Why is it not a reliable source?  It's a book available at Amazon, and American Free Press has a wiki article.  Certainly it's a reliable source for the fact that it exists, and the fact that Willie makes the claims he makes within.  Contrivance (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not forget, the article is of WR and not others.Combatant (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Association with other 9/11 theorists through co-authorship of a book is significant.  Contrivance (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the Ref to the "Debunking 9/11" Book Cut? 

message: Willie has verifiably told the British Press and C-Span that he told the whole story on 9/11 and to the Spanish media, and he claims that his accounts were edited by the American press.  This explanation for the apparent discrepancy in his story as recounted in the "9/11 Attacks" section should be included in the article.  Contrivance (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so, you are speculating again.Combatant (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not speculation.  Willie verifiably makes the claims on C-span and in the Lancaster article.  Contrivance (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the Commentary on the Missing Press Material Cut? 

message: The major problem is that the objective facts about Mr. Rodriguez are not kind to him.  He has made reckless, impossible, irresponsible, and extremely self-serving claims, and he arranged to operate in an environment of unbridled cult-hero-worship where these claims were never challenged.  Willie's abogaditos have labored manfully to try to cover up the facts by challenging the reliability and copyright legality of just about every source--even when the source is Willie's own mouth on video, and now they're burying the ones they can't keep out under a lot of spam.  Commentator 67.85.126.95 has even expressed the opinion that Willy need not support his claims, and has attempted to intimidate several of the editors on this page.  
What may be a factor is that it pretty quickly becomes evident that Willy has made a career out of traveling around the world telling stories that are not true and asking for money.  That kind of activity is not much admired in polite society.  Parallels to the James Frey story are evident.  Contrivance (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not been claiming ownership of the article.  I have objected to Combatant's continuing reversions to edits that are ungrammatical, unfactual, and omit important information.  I note that the fact that the article is unclear and too long is largely due to edits by Combatant and her predecessors that lard on meaningless data in an attempt to obfuscate the facts.  Contrivance (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that you started this spaming and the amount of garbage in the document. Things like "next to paypal button", "no proof ever found.." (by you), gossip from 9/11 websites, gossip from 9/11 bloggers, speculation of why Rodriguez do things, speculation of his experience (you were not in the building on 9/11 next to him). Constant and blatant harrasment on user pages acting like own the pages. Attitude in other articles, not only this one. Etc. etc. etc. People just have to see and read the archives of all your edits, the tone, the attempts and then also read your comments and atitude towards the image of the peoplle you are editing about to read the destructive agenda you have executed on wikipedia.Combatant (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Next to the paypal button is an important point because as context it suggests an explanation for why Willie took the claim to the 15 single-handed rescues down.  Speculating about that is not appropriate to the article, but is entirely appropriate to the discussion page.  When I say "no proof was ever provided" it's because no proof was provided.  When someone makes extraordinary claims, the lack of proof is noteworthy.  If you're going to claim proof was provided, please provide it.  (And when are you going to provide the clips from "Last Man Out" or from CNN en Espanol that you claim?  Willie claimed in LA 8/17/07 that "lost" CNN tapes had been found that showed that he told the whole story the afternoon of 9/11.  Where are the tapes?)  The transcript of William's presentation in 2006 in Los Angeles is not "gossip from 9/11 bloggers".  It's important evidence you want to outlaw because you want to protect Willy from his own words.  The purpose of the discussion pages is to discuss.  It's not my fault if you're not up to the challenge of discussing.  You claim the record shows my bad attitude, but you provide no examples to back up your claims.  What destructive agenda have I executed?  I'm trying to put together an even-handed factual narrative about William Rodriguez's story.  You're making that very difficult by trying to  obfuscate the facts, and by refusing to discuss the issues.    Contrivance (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

text: Grumble.  He did say "an explosion", and "from below" (not necessarily from the basement), and that it was before the impact, but it may have been before the sound of the impact, and the speed of sound in steel far exceeds the speed of sound in air.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Mr. Rodriguez was very clear that these were two separate events (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxF4HL-kIfo&t=25s) (Begins at the 13:04 point). According to Mr. Rodriguez, the first explosion seemed to come from between levels B2 & B3. This event caused everyone and everything to jump upwards. He thought a moment about perhaps the explosion could have come from the "mechanical room" where things like generators, pumps, etc. were located. As he was about to vocalize his thoughts, he heard and felt a large explosion at the top of the building. The timing between the explosions was long enough that it excluded any relationship to the speed of sound. Approximately 20 of Mr. Rodriguez's co-workers felt and experienced the same thing. There were several explosions including at least one explosion that completely destroyed the lobby. Neither NIST or FEMA or any other govt. agency has been able to explain the cause of these explosions. Jtpaladin (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

text: Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, which do not include interviews and Youtube videos. The difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is explained here. Bradv 02:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Major Problem With This Article Right Now 

message: User Contrivance has been claiming ownership of this article. User has been warned on user's talk page. manadude2 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not been claiming ownership of the article.  I have objected to Combatant's continuing reversions to edits that are ungrammatical, unfactual, and omit important information.  I note that the fact that the article is unclear and too long is largely due to edits by Combatant and her predecessors that lard on meaningless data in an attempt to obfuscate the facts.  Contrivance (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious that you started this spaming and the amount of garbage in the document. Things like "next to paypal button", "no proof ever found.." (by you), gossip from 9/11 websites, gossip from 9/11 bloggers, speculation of why Rodriguez do things, speculation of his experience (you were not in the building on 9/11 next to him). Constant and blatant harrasment on user pages acting like own the pages. Attitude in other articles, not only this one. Etc. etc. etc. People just have to see and read the archives of all your edits, the tone, the attempts and then also read your comments and atitude towards the image of the peoplle you are editing about to read the destructive agenda you have executed on wikipedia.Combatant (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Next to the paypal button is an important point because as context it suggests an explanation for why Willie took the claim to the 15 single-handed rescues down.  Speculating about that is not appropriate to the article, but is entirely appropriate to the discussion page.  When I say "no proof was ever provided" it's because no proof was provided.  When someone makes extraordinary claims, the lack of proof is noteworthy.  If you're going to claim proof was provided, please provide it.  (And when are you going to provide the clips from "Last Man Out" or from CNN en Espanol that you claim?  Willie claimed in LA 8/17/07 that "lost" CNN tapes had been found that showed that he told the whole story the afternoon of 9/11.  Where are the tapes?)  The transcript of William's presentation in 2006 in Los Angeles is not "gossip from 9/11 bloggers".  It's important evidence you want to outlaw because you want to protect Willy from his own words.  The purpose of the discussion pages is to discuss.  It's not my fault if you're not up to the challenge of discussing.  You claim the record shows my bad attitude, but you provide no examples to back up your claims.  What destructive agenda have I executed?  I'm trying to put together an even-handed factual narrative about William Rodriguez's story.  You're making that very difficult by trying to  obfuscate the facts, and by refusing to discuss the issues.    Contrivance (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Contrivance claiming ownership. 

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

message: William made this claim to the Los Angeles Symposium in June 2006.  It appears also in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo.
Combatant claims el Mundo says he helped to raise 122 million.  
El Mundo says "WILLIAM recaudó 122 millones de dólares para los que, como él, perdieron todo el 11-S: inmigrantes, pobres, sin seguro médico y sin empleo."   http://www.elmundo.es/suplementos/cronica/2005/517/1126389617.html 
Now even Billboard Spanish is enough to figure out that says "William raised 122 million dollars for those who, like he, lost everything on 9/11: immigrants, poor men, without medical insurance and unemployed."
Now either Combatant's language skills in Spanish are as bad as his skills in English, or he's trying to deceive us.
Or both.  Contrivance (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Willie claimed in the Los Angeles Symposium in 6/06 that he raised $122 million.  Are you still here?  I thought you were identified as a sockpuppet of Sharphdmi, Combatant, and WtcSurvivor.  Since no one else is identified as the source of the information in the El Mundo article, it seems reasonable to believe that it came from him, since he is known to have made that claim.  Contrivance (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rodriguiez claim that he raised 122 million dollars 

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

message: You guys forgot to mention that William Rodriguez said that the explosion he heard came from the BASEMENT level of the WTC and that it happened BEFORE the plane hit the tower.  That's IMPORTANT!
Why is Wikipedia so anti-conspiracy?  Doesn't Wikipedia care about the truth?
Also, ABC news twisted his words to look like he said the explosion came from the plane's impact.  That was dishonest and should be mentioned on wikipedia, unless wikipedia believes that the establishment is gospel truth, which it seems to do.  
All of these facts are on youtube if you want to verify them.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by WWu777 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Grumble.  He did say "an explosion", and "from below" (not necessarily from the basement), and that it was before the impact, but it may have been before the sound of the impact, and the speed of sound in steel far exceeds the speed of sound in air.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Mr. Rodriguez was very clear that these were two separate events (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxF4HL-kIfo&t=25s) (Begins at the 13:04 point). According to Mr. Rodriguez, the first explosion seemed to come from between levels B2 & B3. This event caused everyone and everything to jump upwards. He thought a moment about perhaps the explosion could have come from the "mechanical room" where things like generators, pumps, etc. were located. As he was about to vocalize his thoughts, he heard and felt a large explosion at the top of the building. The timing between the explosions was long enough that it excluded any relationship to the speed of sound. Approximately 20 of Mr. Rodriguez's co-workers felt and experienced the same thing. There were several explosions including at least one explosion that completely destroyed the lobby. Neither NIST or FEMA or any other govt. agency has been able to explain the cause of these explosions. Jtpaladin (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

message: This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.  
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pending changes

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

message: Substituted at 10:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: :I red throug the IRS-information
"Proper sourcing always depends on context" 
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources" 
"a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation"
In the source video(s) William Rodriguez himself talks live about what he himself has wittnessed and experienced alsofrom behalf of media in different countries (US and Spain). The most reliable source about what William Rodriguez has himself said/is saying is his own recorded voice and picture i.e. video.
So lets get William back to the Wiki-page telling himself about himself - or explain me exactly what more evidence is here to be needed to state that William says he 1)experienced explosions and 2) is not satisfied that his testimonials has been rejected in the States, but not in other countries like Spain. --Mik-kiss (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources, which do not include interviews and Youtube videos. The difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is explained here. Bradv 02:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary source interview of the person himsilf conserning what he says he has experienced is reliable source