# 911 Conspiraloon Alert



## icklefairy (Jan 30, 2007)

Dunno if anyone is interested but William Rodriguez - last man out of the Twin Towers is holding a series of talks in Devon in the next few weeks, introduced by David Shaylor.

Exeter Cathedral - 3rd Feb
Civic Hall, Totnes - 4th Feb
Plymouth Student Union - 18th Feb

Tickets are only a fiver - tinfoil hats compulsory  

www.last-man-out.com


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2007)

Some useful background to the man:



> Magicians assistant
> 
> When Rodriguez was young, the person known as a "debunker of pseudoscience", The Amazing Randi hired him as an assistant. Rodriguez used the stage name "Roudy" while exposing faith healers and psychics. Rodriguez, as Benjamin Smith explained in a New York Sun article, "proved adroit at insinuating himself into the good graces of Randi's targets and eliciting incriminating information."[3]
> 
> ...


----------



## icklefairy (Jan 30, 2007)

Should be a laugh then


----------



## Psychonaut (Jan 30, 2007)

Last time i checked 9-11 victims were a sacred cow round these parts. Is there any particular reason this man is singled out for your derision? Its not been made obvious so far.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2007)

Psychonaut said:
			
		

> Last time i checked 9-11 victims were a sacred cow round these parts.


How's he a "victim"? 

And how does pointing out his publicly documented background count as "derision"? I think it's important to know the background of someone making outstanding claims, especially if they're asking for your money. Don't you agree?


----------



## icklefairy (Jan 30, 2007)

I would call him a survivor   

Not being mean about him though


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 30, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Some useful background to the man:



What part of it is 'useful' and why is it 'useful'?


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 30, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> What part of it is 'useful' and why is it 'useful'?



That's exactly what I was thinking


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> What part of it is 'useful' and why is it 'useful'?


Because he's making some _quite astonishing_ claims. If you think that his background is completely irrelevant, then feel free to ignore it. 


> "I was a magician for thirty years. . . It is very easy to do misdirection, to make you look into one place while you're doing the magic with the other hand." Inferring that in plain sight, the planes struck; out of sight, bombs exploded, "It's just a big magic trick," Rodriguez concludes. "It's an illusion.


Oh, it's 'useful' is in helping build a full picture of the man. 

Surely that's what you'd do with anyone making such unbelievable, evidence-free claims, no?

No? _Why ever not?_


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 30, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> How's he a "victim"?
> 
> And how does pointing out his publicly documented background count as "derision"? I think it's important to know the background of someone making outstanding claims, especially if they're asking for your money. Don't you agree?


Well, he's had health problems like many others who were exposed to the toxic conditions of the WTC dust fallout. Plus, emotional trauma I would assume.

Do you think James Randi is disreputable editor? It's so amazing how attitutes can change around here 

If you come to one of his talks you'll hear him describe how he turned down political $$$$ - the Bush regime was feting him for his heroics - for the chance to honestly speak his story. For a while this meant he had to live in his car. But, let's not let the actual story get in the way of cheap slurs.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2007)

OOO, uni of East London on the 6th...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 30, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Because he's making some _quite astonishing_ claims. If you think that his background is completely irrelevant, then feel free to ignore it.
> Oh, it's 'useful' is in helping build a full picture of the man. Surely that's what you'd one do with anyone claiming such unbelievable, evidence-free things, no?
> 
> No? Why not?



If anything his past work as an alternative cynic magician bolsters his credibility.



> When Rodriguez was young, the person known as a "debunker of pseudoscience", The Amazing Randi hired him as an assistant. Rodriguez used the stage name "Roudy" while exposing faith healers and psychics. Rodriguez, as Benjamin Smith explained in a New York Sun article, "proved adroit at insinuating himself into the good graces of Randi's targets and eliciting incriminating information."




I can't think any 'useful' person would give more credibility to this guy if he had a 9-5 office job all his life.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 30, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Surely that's what you'd do with anyone making such unbelievable, evidence-free claims, no?



So first-hand eyewitness accounts are not evidence then?

This is new territory for you I must say. 

And at the same time you blithely deride *this hero *you wonder why eyewitnesses who have accounts which differ from an official version might choose to stay quiet?


----------



## Psychonaut (Jan 30, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> How's he a "victim"?
> 
> And how does pointing out his publicly documented background count as "derision"? I think it's important to know the background of someone making outstanding claims, especially if they're asking for your money. Don't you agree?



I quite agree. icklefairy's 'tin foil' comment in the OP could be interpreted as derision. But s/he has said their not being mean so ill drop it.  Jazzz has covered the victim aspect neatly.


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2007)

Jazzz said:
			
		

> So first-hand eyewitness accounts are not evidence then?


Not this one:



> "I was a magician for thirty years. . . It is very easy to do misdirection, to make you look into one place while you're doing the magic with the other hand." Inferring that in plain sight, the planes struck; out of sight, bombs exploded, "It's just a big magic trick," Rodriguez concludes. "It's an illusion.


No proof. No evidence. No corroborative statements. Nothing to back up his claims. Just his unqualified opinion. 

No wonder you like him, Jazzz.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 30, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> No proof. No evidence. No corroborative statements. Nothing to back up his claims. Just his unqualified opinion.



He was a witness so he *is* evidence.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2007)

> So first-hand eyewitness accounts are not evidence then?



They are, but as I have no doubt D-B will tell us if/when he posts on here, eyewitness accounts are not reliable, especially in stress situations. IIRC most courts would look for other corroborating evidence to support eyewitness statements.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 30, 2007)

Maybe we need an urban family day out to see this nutter?


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2007)

DrRingDing said:
			
		

> Maybe we need an urban family day out to see this nutter?


No thanks. I don't want to hang out with the likes of Shaylor.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 30, 2007)

Psychonaut said:
			
		

> I quite agree. icklefairy's 'tin foil' comment in the OP could be interpreted as derision. But s/he has said their not being mean so ill drop it.  Jazzz has covered the victim aspect neatly.


I could have added the minor detail of losing many of your work colleagues and friends, you know little things like that


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2007)

I would imagine that he prefers to think of himself as a survivor rather than victim...


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 30, 2007)

He got out so more a survivor than a victim .Why plant bombs as well as send planes ?Surely one of the other is enough to bring the towers down?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 30, 2007)

And what if one of the planes goes wide but the bombs go off anyway?


----------



## editor (Jan 30, 2007)

Idris2002 said:
			
		

> And what if one of the planes goes wide but the bombs go off anyway?


They'd use some special, top secret, still-never-heard-of invisible technology to cover that up, just like the bombs. Obviously!


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 30, 2007)

I cut myself shaving this morning - I forgot to leave my Occam's razor underneath it's cardboard pyramid.


----------



## Cid (Jan 30, 2007)

The 9/11 conspiracy is one of the most patantly ridiculous ever dreamt up... It's probably one of the most intensively investigated building collapses around, quite apart from the fact that most structural engineers have, at one time or another, had a look at it... It's a good example of how steel behaves in extreme conditions. In fact we had a lecture not so long ago (studying architecture) from a guy with something like 30 years experience working on the dynamics of how structures collapse (possibly a _bit_ more than the good doctor) that covered precisely that...

He also showed us ...


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> He also showed us ...


Fantastic. I love the laughing and jeering of the onlookers too!

Amazingly, Jazzz still believes that two of the world's tallest and most high profile structures were secretly blown up using invisible explosives in a perfectly timed, immaculate manoeuvre that managed to fool every qualified architect, structural engineer, demolition expert, crash investigator, insurance investigator and explosives expert on the entire planet!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 31, 2007)

I was watching a report on the Bush administrations attempt to fiddle CO2 figures...the guy who was charged with collating and presenting these figures was an ex-oil industry director and lobbyist...and you're trying to tell me that this lot were capable of creating a bigger, wider and deeper conspiracy than even Day 5 of 24 had, and they can't even see far enough to realise that putting someone who is quite obviously going to be industry biased into a position like this would have credibility?

Pur-leeze.


----------



## Psychonaut (Jan 31, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I was watching a report on the Bush administrations attempt to fiddle CO2 figures...the guy who was charged with collating and presenting these figures was an ex-oil industry director and lobbyist...and you're trying to tell me that this lot were capable of creating a bigger, wider and deeper conspiracy than even Day 5 of 24 had, and they can't even see far enough to realise that putting someone who is quite obviously going to be industry biased into a position like this would have credibility?
> 
> Pur-leeze.



It amazes me how many intelligent people seem unable to grasp the concept of a double-bluff.

God id love to round you all up for a nice game of poker


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 31, 2007)

I'm well aware of the idea of a double bluff - but given the chronic lack of actual evidence, rather than hearsay to support any of the claims made by the 9/11 truth seekers (who as I've said on numerous occassions would be better off focussing in impeaching Bush on the basis of neglect of duty for which there is a clear line of evidence) and the huge amount of evidence that the Bush administration is wholly and utterly incompetent at anything that doesn't involve Karl Rove's media management skills, I'd like to see some actual evidence of the depth of thinking required for a double bluff being present.


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2007)

Psychonaut said:
			
		

> God id love to round you all up for a nice game of poker


If you hand is as weak as the conspiraloon 'evidence' you'll be leaving without your trousers.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 31, 2007)

bizarre interweb 2nd post post


----------



## Jografer (Jan 31, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I'm well aware of the idea of a double bluff - but given the chronic lack of actual evidence, rather than hearsay to support any of the claims made by the 9/11 truth seekers (who as I've said on numerous occassions would be better off focussing in impeaching Bush on the basis of neglect of duty for which there is a clear line of evidence) and the huge amount of evidence that the Bush administration is wholly and utterly incompetent at anything that doesn't involve Karl Rove's media management skills, I'd like to see some actual evidence of the depth of thinking required for a double bluff being present.



yup, all this reminds me of an academic some years ago who proved that Homer did not in fact write the Illiad, but it was written by someone else who just coincidentally had the same name...


----------



## icklefairy (Feb 6, 2007)

Anyone go to this then??

I though Rodriguez came across as very sincere.


----------



## Jografer (Feb 6, 2007)

icklefairy said:
			
		

> I though Rodriguez came across as very sincere.



Sincerity.... once you can fake it you've got it made...


----------



## icklefairy (Feb 7, 2007)

Bit mean - he doesn't seem to be profiting from the talks??


----------

