Update from William Rodriguez:

Dear Friends and supporters,
Fox news came out today with the rumor that Rosie O'Donnell was fired because she mentioned my story to a live audience of "The View" that was recorded by a spectator and posted on the Internet. The absurdity of their comments and their lack of investigative skills to even research that what she was talking about, makes Fox look like always, a far right demagogic network with no desire to look on the real evidence of 9/11. They finished by attacking the messenger like always.
Rosie did not get fired by mentioning me. I canceled the appearance before Rosie decided to quit, due to my many efforts in Washington and nationwide. Look on Rosie's blog today ( HTTP://www.rosie.com/blog/sections/ask-ro/ ) and she also address the rumors:

cj writes:

Fox says you left because of a video of you talking about wtc7 to the audience during a commercial break. Um, you talked about that on air! And you need to keep talking! Perpetuate the conversation!

(Rosie)
william rodriguez
my friend
google him
i didnt get fired for talking about him
he was a booked guest in fact

Hope this clarifies it for my friends, supporters and enemies alike.
I am still working hard for the truth and Rosie is by my side.
William

RAW STORY
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday May 29, 2007

"Is this the real reason?" Fox News asked Tuesday why Rosie O'Donnell is no longer on The View, before playing a YouTube video of O'Donnell warming up her audience by "ranting" about suspicious events she says were omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.

Most accounts have stated that O'Donnell's departure was due to an on-air fight over Iraq with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

The Fox hosts speculate that the video might have come from an audience member's cellphone, and then comment briefly on how "people go off on this topic when Rosie talks about World Trade Center Building Number 7," before cutting to a story about a giant lizard.

The video was also posted at the Screw Loose Change blog, which characterized O'Donnell as "raving about WTC 7 being omitted from the 9-11 Commission Report," adding "like the 9-11 Commission was concerned about a building in which nobody died, which was not a direct target of the attacks."

Loose Change is an internet documentary which has received widespread press coverage over the last couple of years. Although many "9/11 truth" movement activists have criticized prior edits of the documentary, including a since-removed section which claimed video "proof" that the World Trade Center had been blown up, billionaire Mark Cuban is planning to finance a theatrical release, after its latest edit, with actor Charlie Sheen possibly providing narration.

"And anyway, the notion that the 9-11 Commission Report (PDF file) does not mention WTC 7 is wrong," Pat at "Screw Loose Change" writes, before citing four references to it, including page numbers.

However, none of these selections refer to the destruction of WTC 7, which has perplexed many scientists, government investigators and architects over the years.

WTC7 housed the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was investigating Enron. Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.” [Barry Zwicker, The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw]

How convenient for WTC7 to be totally destroyed and Cliff Baxter, former Enron Vice Chairman, to kill himself. Blame it on the bossa nova, er, I mean al-Qaeda. It's obvious that the financing of 9/11 is one of those intentionally underexamined points in the OTC, where more truth than fiction could be easily shaken out. What say you Sibel?

Madsen: Citibank/Citigroup back channel “Account 98″ financing of Al Qaeda 9/11 terrorists, nearly exposed by Enron’s dead Cliff Baxter. Neat package, eh?

The recent rediscovery of the Aman Zafar photo of WTC7 has sparked a lot of controversy over its authenticity and over the authenticity of the photo published in the NIST report.

I will analyze and compare these two and two other photos of the lower southwest corner of WTC7 and determine that there was indeed damage done to the southwest corner on floors 8-18 with the deepest damage occurring around the 12th floor.

The Zafar photo which seemingly shows an intact corner on the 12th floor, reveals more damage when studied in detail. An optical illusion gives the false impression of an intact corner (column) on the 12th floor. The other photos show that indeed the corner was gone at this level.

The NIST/NYPD shot shares some features with the other photos but it has anomalies that are suggestive of deliberate manipulation.

EDIT: link wasn't working, now it is
Download the article here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0CKUHGOF

"We need a new 9/11" said one of the final voices in the HIstory Channel documentary, "Inside 9/11." This documentary was so blatently fraudulent, I would recommend showing it to someone so that they can see what the official story is. (At least at this time)

Some of the highlights are:
"Fires at the impact zones reached 2000 degrees farenheit."
Yet, there were people standing in the impact zones?
Yet they play the audio of firefighters on the 78th floor?

"The planes knocked all the fireproofing off of the building."

Then the timeline went something like this,
"10:20 a.m. - The South Tower collapses"
"8:20 p.m. - George Bush gives a speech from the White House"

Did they forget something? Oh yeah... building 7. That can't be important.

I'll have to watch this agan, hopefully someone will get it up on Google Video and do a full analysis.

Short comparison of structural collapse and controlled demolition of a building.

Structural collapse

This building in India collapsed because of structural failure. See also video. Read more at Gujarat News report.

These buildings collapsed because of earthquake.

This is a great video showing the 2nd plane on 911. It is by far the longest shot I have seen of the 2nd plane before it hits the buildings. The clip is about 20 sec. in to the video.

I've done very little with my spare time in the last few months except absorb data on the 911 shindig. One thing has stood out for me as an unanswered question - Why demolish wtc 7?

The rest hangs together very well - The GOP needs a Pearl Harbour, finds an Al Quaida plot they like, lets it happen, makes it worse then - Hooray! The New American Century begins. (As an aside, I bet Osama Bin Laden fell off his chair when he saw the whole thing collapse. He would have been expecting the "normal" effect of the planes, not the "Bush-Enhanced" version.)

Here's my thought.

The logistics in carrying out a project of this scale (911) would have been immense. The paper and computer file trails would have been so large that they would be certain to be discovered. There is no way you can do this kind of job without leaving a sea of traceable events - no matter how hard you try to cover your tracks.

Unless... Right from the outset you find a VERY secure location large enough to hold your team and all their data and THEN... you destroy it on completion of your project along with all the computers, filing cabinets, dossiers and possibly even a few dissenters.

Why would the residents of a destroyed building be something Giuliani felt obligated not to "name on the air?" - Jon

Source: rawstory.com

5/13/2007

On this morning's edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace grilled presidential candidate and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani on his decision to put the emergency response command center in the World Trade Center in 1997, despite suggestions from advisers that it should be located elsewhere.

"Your director of emergency management suggested, recommended, that you not put it [in the World Trade Center] because it had been a target in 1993. Why did you do that?" asked Wallace.

"My director of emergency management recommended 7 World Trade Center," replied Giuliani.

"I've got a copy right here of Jerry Hauer's directive to you," Wallace came back, "and I -- there were meetings in which Jerry Hauer said that it's a bad idea and the police chief, Howard Safir said it was a bad idea."

Further technical problems with the BBC to New York LIVE link on 9/11...

This time there are audio problems when Jane Standley is asked about the 9/11 enigma, that is WTC7 !!!

Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsqAHhTWEH0

Being that I am still receiving comments that I faked the BBC footage, in which WTC7 was pronounced collapsed at 4:57pm and is still standing behind Jane Standley at least 13 minutes prior to the actual collapse time of 5:20pm, I decided to revisit the BBC footage for further analysis and additional footage to prove authenticity (sad, but turned out well in the end).

Like all of us, I have sometimes been surprised by what seemed to be irrational and overly emotional responses from close friends, respected colleagues or family members on the issue of 9/11 truth. After each such incident, I wondered how someone could appear to be so blind even to the big problems with some of the most basic undisputed facts of 9/11, like the fact that our servants in government have failed to give us an explanation for the collapse of WTC7 and the fact that the only arguments which even begin to address the concerns of citizens questioning the quality of our servants' work-product, The 9/11 Commission Report, were given to us by a privately owned magazine, and a cheesy one at that, instead of from our servants themselves. Why couldn't my loved ones see the elephants in the living room?

I recently started mapping the damage on the south side of WTC7. With the recent discovery of the ABC footage that shows the top portion of Building 7 in detail and the photos of Steve Spak, Aman Zafar and NIST most of the damage/intact facade can now be mapped. The problem is that the Zafar photo contradicts the photos from NIST and the NIST photos seem to contradict each other.

"

Here is the location of the thread: http://forums.abcnews.go.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=25&nav=messages&webtag=ABCPolitics&tid=176287

I was sure it was going to get deleted when I set it up yesterday, but there it is even today!

Most of the people responding are clearly in line with the OCT. And I'm the only one holding the fort.

Admittedly, the moderators have been editing the thread as they completely deleted the original post made by me with the link to the actual video of Edwards speaking about WTC 7. And they also deleted my amazon.com link to David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". But so far the thread looks like it will survive another yet another daily cycle!

THIS IS GREAT NEWS! It shows the ABC News Message Boards are finally becoming more tolerant of the subject of WTC 7, which they definitely were not before:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6598

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7566

So all you 911Bloggers, go set up an account over there to help me out! I really could use the support!

Source: http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id405.html

THE WTC7: Complaint for Injunction and Declaratory Relief has been filed in United States District Court Southern District of New York!

May 8, 2007 – On February 28, 2007 I issued a Request for Correction to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). As of today, NIST has not responded. Yesterday, Attorney Jerry Leaphart of Jerry Leaphart & Associates (Danbury, CT) filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief in United States District Court Southern District of New York on my behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated. The purpose of both the Request for Correction and this recent legal action is to stop the direction the government is heading regarding its final report on how World Trade Center Seven collapsed in 6.6 seconds on September 11, 2001.

For the rest of the article, go here:

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id405.html

911 Truth Tucson, Truth Squad reaches presidential candidate John Edwards, and local Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords....

http://911truthtucson.org/pages/truthsquad.html

A couple of weeks ago I posted some images and footage of what appeared to be a long straight gash in the south face of Building 7. It's visible from the roofline down to about the 20th floor. This footage was discovered in the 9/11 archive that was released by archive.org. The footage can be verified here.

A question that remained was why NIST has not shown any photographs of this gash.

ABC, 11 september, 13:45

High quality XviD (640x480, deinterlaced)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K4II5J2U
Original MPEG2 (cut from the original, not reencoded, 480x480 interlaced)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WTJZ1C7G

ABC, 11 september 13:54