Although he sometimes sends them to thousands of people, William has asked that I not publish his emails. In the interest of openness and fair play, I will post here my emails to him, in chronological order from most recent to oldest.
*****

May 24, 2008

Dear William,

Many websites and articles contain the claim that you have been "honored at the White House five times." Is that true? If so, can you provide details about those occasions?

Thank you,
Mark
*********************

May 22, 2008

http://www.william911.com/page5.html

I see that if someone scrolls down, past the blank page, to the very bottom of the page, they'll see that you wrote,

"Last Update April 28th, The Tour is no longer named "Gravy" due to the "retirement" of the low life who it was named to."

I haven't "retired" from anything, William, as a view of my website should tell you. That's what you get for listening to truthers. I guess the name stands, then.

Sincerely,
Mark


May 22, 2008

William, what difference does it make when the page was added? It's on your website now, was seen by a reader and pointed out to me.

If you make veiled or direct threats, I will quote you. Clear enough? Or perhaps you meant something else. If so, explain yourself, as I asked you to do. Why are you so ashamed of your words? I suggest you think about that. I told you that you can reprint all of my emails.

Again, no one has EVER stopped you from explaining yourself or addressing the many points I raise in my paper. It cowardly to blame others for your inability to face reality

Sincerely,
Mark


May 22, 2008

Yet another sad reply from you, William. How many times do you have to be told that you can't just accuse someone of being wrong: you have to provide evidence that they're wrong, as I've done with a few dozen of your claims.

You reached out to me? When did that happen, William? I've been offering you a chance to explain yourself for over a year. You've defiantly said that you will not, yet you name a tour after me. You also fled from the chance to have an on-air discussion with me, and you've fled from every opportunity to explain yourself online. Remember, that's why I started looking into your story.

And why did you say, "be happy that I don't call the tour Gravy or Mark Roberts anymore or that I do not continue mentioning you and your coments , including religious ones to those that it will matter and that I have an audience for?" You do call the tour "International Gravy Tour: it's on your website. You do say, "The tour is based on reacions (sic) to an attack piece written by somebody on the Internet called Mark Roberts. A liar and offender of the 9/11 Survivors." It's on your website.

What have I ever said about religion, besides noting that you're a recent convert to Islam and asking why you continue to support a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite? Why exactly should I be "happy" that you're not talking about me to "those that it will matter?"

Please clarify that statement.

Sincerely,
Mark

May 22, 2008

Dear William,

It's been pointed out to me that this statement appears on your website: "The tour is based on reacions (sic) to an attack piece written by somebody on the Internet called Mark Roberts. A liar and offender of the 9/11 Survivors."

It saddens me to see that you continue to lie about me. Doesn't the truth matter to you at all? I again call your attention to the fact that you have never responded to the many detailed points in my paper about you, nor have you ever shown that I've gotten anything wrong. The offer to print your response stands, as it has for a year.

William, will you ever be an honorable person again?

Sincerely,
Mark
*********************


Dec 20, 2007 Subject: Re: I'm back

Dear William,

You say you denounce anti-Semitism and hate. Then why do you still associate with Kevin Barrett, rather than denouncing him? Are you going to keep associating with him?

And why are you afraid to answer my other questions and address the points in my paper and emails?

Sincerely, Mark
*********************

December 20, 2007 Subject: Re: Confidential

Dear Samandu,

Who are you and why are you speaking for William Rodriguez?

If he denounces hate and anti-Semitism, then why is he still appearing with people like Kevin Barrett, rather than denouncing them?

Confusedly yours,
Mark
*********************


December 14, 2007

Dear William,

You haven't replied to my last emails. I'm really becoming concerned that perhaps you do support people who promote ignorance, hatred, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust denial. Is this true, William? Or will you denounce the people you've associated with who promote those things?

Sincerely,
Mark
*********************

December 13, 2007 #2

Dear William,

I see that you complained about me posting your email, which you had sent to your massive mailing list, on the JREF, and demanded that it be taken down. It's interesting that you want many people, but not certain others, to read that. Since I have nothing to hide, you remain free to publish mine, as long as they're unedited.

I see that you sent my last email to the deeply disturbed Kevin Barrett, who is filled with violent fantasies of seeing his imagined enemies – like me – on the scaffold, and to the American Free Press, which is published by a man the Anti-Defamation League calls "one of the most influential American anti-Semitic propagandists of the past 50 years." Remember? Willis Carto. You spoke at his conference in D.C. in 2006.

I was expecting that you would go on the record as someone who denounces lies, hatred, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust denial. Does this mean that you are choosing to support people who promote these things?

Please make it clear where you stand on these important issues. I remain hopeful that you'll choose the honorable path.

Thank you,
Mark
*********************

December 13, 2007 #1

Hi, William.

My computer didn't recognize the attachment Roberts.docx. What type of file is it? Can you send it in a different format? Also, I don't recall sending you a picture. What were you referring to?

Thanks,
Mark
*********************


December 11, 2007

Dear William,

Yes, you're welcome to share any of my emails to you with others. Feel free to send this out to your mailing lists.

William, why do you repeatedly refer to my very detailed paper about your claims, but never address the points in it? I have told you multiple times that I will publish your comments and corrections. How can I do that if I don't know what they are? How can you call my paper a "hit piece" when you can't tell me what I got wrong?

For example, you say that people at the JREF forum corrected me about where you were trapped, multiple times, and that I failed to change anything. William, you know that's not true, because you're the only one who has that information! Since you've received my emails, and you read the JREF forum, you know that I have said multiple times that all you have to do is give me specifics, and I'll put it in my paper! If you misspoke before, no problem: I'll make the correction! If I got it wrong, no problem: I'll make the correction! Doesn't it seem awfully silly and childish to keep saying I'm wrong but never to say what's right? Why won't the keymaster unlock this door?

Okay, I'll try one more time:
William, can you tell me where you were trapped? Preferably point it out on a map: you'll find a good one here. Download the map, put a dot or an X or a circle over the area, and email it to me. Simple. I'm not a psychic.

Keep in mind that this issue has nothing to do with any of the claims I examine in my paper. It doesn't matter to me at all, except on a human interest level. It's a distraction repeatedly raised by someone who is unable to address the issues that I address. I'm afraid that you have adopted this distraction for the same reason. So what will it be? Do I go back to RedIbis and say, "Well, I tried again, but for some reason William can't or won't say where he was?"

***

Further, you have never once addressed the hundreds of accounts I provided in that paper, all of which describe and/or are consistent with jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts and igniting, and none of which are consistent with the use of high explosives.

The information about the elevators, jet fuel, burns, what people heard and saw, the difference between high explosives and deflagrations: all of that takes up over half of my paper. And I haven't seen you address any of it. You weren't the only one there, William. Do the other accounts make any impression on you at all? Do they make you question your interpretation and your (recent) assumption that you heard an explosion before flight 11 hit and that bombs were responsible?

For instance, in August, 2006, you said you were going to interview Arturo Griffith, the operator of the #50 freight elevator in the north tower, to get corroborating evidence for your story. As I pointed out, Mr. Griffith's published accounts do not support your story and do support the "official" story. It's December, 2007, 16 months later. Have you interviewed Arturo Griffith yet? If so, what did he tell you? If not, why not?

***

Now, about John Schroeder. Put yourself in his shoes. Imagine that you are very confused about the events of 9/11, largely because you don't know the south tower had already collapsed when you exited the north. Six years later, you still don't know that, and you think the devastation you saw in the stairwell, in the lobby, and on the street, was caused by something else.

Are you with me?

In 2007, four guys interview you. You tell them that you're distraught, that you're angry, that your life has been hell since 9/11, and that you're very confused about what happened that day. Then you tell them about the devastation you saw in the street and the lobby on your way out, and all you can think of is that it was caused by bombs. Then you tell them that when you made it outside, you saw both towers fall, first the north, then the south. You repeat that when they ask about it.

Now, all four of these guys know that your version isn't what happened. All four of then know that the south tower fell when you were in the north and devastated the lobby and the street. But none of them tell you that: not during the interview, not after the interview, not during the editing process. You tell them how confused you are, but none of them care enough to tell you the most important thing you need to know to resolve that confusion.

Then these four guys carefully edit their print and video pieces and put them online, saying that your very confused and incorrect account "sets the historical record straight.

In my paper I explained to John Schroeder what his interviewers – all 9/11 "researchers" – couldn't be bothered to tell him. And I did it fast because I hated the idea of these guys salivating over putting Schroeder's mistaken account in Loose Change Final Cut.

William, be honest: did I do the right thing? I'm not talking about how it was done. Many people might have done it differently, but the fact is that no one was going to tell Schroeder what he needed to know if I didn't do it.

Be honest: if you were in John Schroeder's position, and were terribly troubled and confused, wouldn't you want to know what happened, and that you were basing huge assumptions about 9/11 on wrong information? Or do you think it's better that John Schroeder not know the truth?

***

It bothers you that in my paper I discuss your association with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers? I'm afraid that's just something you're going to have to live with, William. You're not a kid. You spent a lot of time with, and received a lot of aid from, individuals and organizations that are devoted to hatred and bigotry.

Look at it this way: if my 9/11 research involved repeatedly traveling with, speaking with, and receiving financial support from the Ku Klux Klan, wouldn't that be important for people to know? If you think so, then hold yourself to the same standard.

Those weren't isolated incidents, William. Just yesterday someone brought up a talk you did in 2005 in Schaumburg, Illinois, which was sponsored by the anti-Semites at AFP and the proud Holocaust denier Eric Hufschmid. In Malaysia you shared the stage and appeared elsewhere with anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Michael Collins Piper, who wrote, "The international audience at the fair—some 1,000 strong—was intrigued by the fact that here were Americans—including a 9-11 survivor—telling them that it was not “the Muslims” who were responsible for 9-11, but that the conspiracy went much higher and much deeper."

And as recently as September, 2006 you spoke at a conference attended by and run by many of the most notorious Holocaust deniers in the world.

I wish I had evidence that you've left that all behind, but just last month you again appeared with Kevin Barrett at at least one speaking engagement. You've appeared with him before and have been on his radio show several times. William, why in the world would you associate with such a deceitful, misinformed, hate-filled person? Here's a summary of some of Barrett's statements. As you know, at the top of his website's homepage it says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
"The Holocaust as it is taught in the US is a hideously destructive myth" – Kevin Barrett

Barrett says it's a "Zionist Big Lie" that the "Germans hated the Jews for no reason."

Barrett confronts journalist Amy Goodman at an event...then asks her to sign Holocaust denier Eric Hufschmid's book.

Barrett names name one of the most egregious white-supremicist neo-Nazis, Ernst Zundel, as someone whose work deserves consideration. Here's a quote by Zundel:
"Wherever we look, we White people find ourselves besieged by peoples of other races who compete aggressively against us for jobs, food, housing, education and above all -- power! The Jews are particularly adept at seizing or insinuating themselves into strategic positions in our society where they wield power far beyond the extent of their numbers....Through us, the White majority of Europe and America, the Jewish minority have obtained their advantages, including their Israel, their Federal Reserve, their World Bank and their International Monetary Fund. In exchange for these advantages, the Jews give us -- their White hosts -- wars, depressions, inflation, unemployment, energy shortages, higher and higher taxes and air piracy. Like sheep, they expect us to go down the road with them -- all the way to the kosher slaughterhouse. We White people of America have done nothing so far which would frustrate the Jews' expectations or their ambitions of becoming the world's slavemasters."

Barrett is a fan of the Idaho Observer newsletter, which is run by Don Harkins, who supports anti-Semitism and white supremacy.


Hang 'em High Barrett

About me and Larry Silverstein: "If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial."

Barrett on journalist Amy Goodman: "Amy, you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize. ...Your silence and lies about 9/11 have murdered over half a million Iraqis and destroyed Constitutional governance in the USA."

"it is likely that Mr. Bush will be hanged, not shot, for treason."

"I appreciate the difficulty you guys must be having doing your job right now, with tens of millions of Americans calling for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company to be prosecuted and (presumably) executed for 9/11 high treason."

"When this thing hits the fan, the leadership in our nation's corporate media may just end up dangling from the end of a rope."

"Flight 93 [sic] is a Goebbels-style propaganda flick designed to incite war crimes. The people who made it should be put on trial."

"Journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold."

"Anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity."


Kevin Barrett, Champion of the Scientific Method

Of the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2: "I haven’t read the whole thing I doubt if anyone ever has or will."

His scientific rebuttal to NIST's detailed explanation of the cause of the Twin Tower collapses: "The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon. ...NIST IMPLICITLY ADMITS: WTC TOWERS DESTROYED IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION."

Barrett on analyzing videos of the collapses: "Scientists aren't necessarily the best people to look at this footage and understand what they are seeing."


More Barrett Insanity

"Every single bombing of a mosque or a market in Iraq has been done by false flag terrorism. There are no indigenous Muslim resistance people doing that."

(From Wikipedia) Barrett first drew attention to his views by writing letters to the editor of the Madison Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal, in which he claimed that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks: "As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape."

Barrett has also claimed the 2005 London bombing, and the 2004 Madrid bombing, were committed by U.S. or western military intelligence and not Islamic terrorists.

Barrett's new website: "WHERETHEYLIVE.ORG will also seek and post home addresses of suspects in the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on 9/11 and during the 9/11 wars."

Barrett interrupts a lecture and is booed out of the auditorium:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE8D7tbN6nY

"Cheney may be the worst mass murderer and traitor not just in US history, but in the history of the world."

About Noam Chomsky: "If he convinces even one person to do something other than work for 9/11 truth, he may as well have personally murdered all 6 billion people on earth."

William, here's your chance to show the world that you do not and will not support irrationality, hatred and anti-Semitism. Will you renounce the lies, hate, and violent fantasies promoted by Kevin Barrett, and pledge not to associate with this sick person again?

If you do continue to associate with him, expect to be judged by the company you choose to keep.

***

Some reminders about the hole you keep digging, but which you have the power to step out of:


Your story about bombs/explosives in the basement before flight 11 hit

1) Makes absolutely no sense to rational people

2) Is not supported by any evidence

3) Is not supported by the laws of physics

4) Is contradicted by people who were close to the blast

5 Is contradicted by your supervisor, who was with you

6) Continues to change. When can we expect the "official version" of the William Rodriguez story to be finalized? Does your memory really improve as years go by? Here's a test: you say you saw one of the hijackers who may have been "casing" the north tower in June, 2001. Are the details of his face and clothes and behavior becoming clearer as time passes, or are they fading away?

7) Came about because of your dislike for a political and bureaucratic situation, not because you were exposed to new facts about the explosion downstairs. Come on, William, it's not as if someone came to you in 2005 and said, "Psst! That boom was a bomb in the basement! Start spreading the word!" You simply decided that you were going to reinterpret the same old facts in a way that makes no sense.

And then there are the numerous (dozens?) of other misrepresentations you make about 9/11. I've corrected many of these in my paper, but you continue to find new ones. I recently saw your appearance on the George Galloway show, which was after you read my paper. In it you made several of your old false claims, such as.
  • Bush didn't want an investigation. Nonsense. You're forgetting about the world's largest criminal investigation, which happened before the 9/11 Commission was formed, William.
  • "They didn't want us to find out exactly what happened that day." We know what happened that day. Your denial prevents you from accepting it.
  • "As part of the 9/11 Commission I testified behind closed doors. I was one of the persons that was not presented in public hearings, because I was talking about the explosions. They didn't want that information to come out." Complete B.S., as I demonstrate in my paper. Why do you keep telling this lie?
  • On the 9/11 Family Steering Committee: "Only 27 questions were answered. ...Some people say it was 60. We don't believe it was 60. We believe it was 27 questions." "We" means you. You know who disagrees with you? The Family Steering Committee, as I point out in my paper.
  • "Six years after 9/11, people are dying. People are affected. Because the environmental effect when the towers collapsed was hide [sic] by the EPA ...In New York you have them on t-shirts with a paper mask. And that was criminal, because they knew about it, and they told us that the air was safe to breathe, because they just wanted to reopen Wall Street. And that's criminal." You're making that up. Officials did not tell Ground Zero workers that the air there was safe to breathe.
  • "I'm not going to say that it was a bomb, because I am not an explosives expert." Then you shouldn't claim that it wasn't what all of the evidence and witness testimony says it was: a jet fuel blast. Is there anything unclear about this concept?
And you made some new false claims, such as,
  • "We had the supervisor of the FAA erase the communications, erase radio communication between the control towers and the planes." 100% wrong. Do you need help with this? If so, let me know. I'll be glad to walk you through it.
  • You said you interviewed people who said there was a fire in the south tower before the north was hit. Really? Not a single security guard, cop, fireman, or civilian that I've seen says any such thing. No alarms went off. No reports were made. Come on, William, you said this on British national television. Who's your source for that absurd claim?
***

Your conspiracy story is an absolute disaster, William. A train wreck of contradictions. A landslide of wrong. Supported only by your imagination.

William, it is in your power to stop using your status as a hero of 9/11 to spread falsehoods. I'm not going away. The truth, painful as it may be to you, is not going away. Making things up won't change it. You can't wish it away. Won't it feel good to stop running from it?

Sincerely,
Mark

Oh, and I don't know anyone in Canarsie. :-\


********************************************End December 11, 2007 email

Date: Aug 12, 2007
Subject: Firefighter John Schroeder –––SECOND REQUEST. THANKS.
To: William rodriguez <wtcbill@gmail.com>

William,

You're probably aware of the video and article about John Schroeder posted by Dylan Avery. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13481

Your name comes up in each of those. In the article, Schroeder mentions a maintenance worker who unlocked a door for him on the 3rd floor of the north tower shortly before it collapsed. The author of the article says that was you. In the video, Schroeder says the same thing, and credits the maintenance worker for saving his and other peoples' lives. One of the filmmakers says, "Willie Rodriguez," and Schroeder, says, '"Willie Rodriguez."

I'd like to know if you can confirm that that was you. I have another source, someone who was with Schroeder at the time, but I'd rather hear from you first. If confirmed, I'll make note of this in my paper about you.

Thank you,
Mark
*******************

Date: Aug 10, 2007
Subject: Firefighter John Schroeder
To: William rodriguez <wtcbill@gmail.com>

William,

You're probably aware of the video and article about John Schroeder posted by Dylan Avery. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13481

Your name comes up in each of those. In the article, Schroeder mentions a maintenance worker who unlocked a door for him on the 3rd floor of the north tower shortly before it collapsed. The author of the article says that was you. In the video, Schroeder says the same thing, and credits the maintenance worker for saving his and other peoples' lives. One of the filmmakers says, "Willie Rodriguez," and Schroeder, says, '"Willie Rodriguez."

I'd like to know if you can confirm that that was you. I have another source, someone who was with Schroeder at the time, but I'd rather hear from you first. If confirmed, I'll make note of this in my paper about you.

Thank you,
Mark
*******************

Date: May 21, 2007
Subject: Re: Shame on you. YOU DISGUSTING HUMAN BEING!!!!!
To: William rodriguez <wtcbill@gmail.com>

William, my work is what I wrote and compiled. I welcome any specific response you may have to that.
Mark
*******************

Date: May 21, 2007
Subject: Re: Shame on you. YOU DISGUSTING HUMAN BEING!!!!!
To: William rodriguez <wtcbill@gmail.com>

Dear William,

I appreciate your not wanting to get into a back-and-forth debate, but I hope you know that national media interviews are hardly the best way to reply to the many detailed points in my paper.

I began looking into your claims because it seemed that you were avoiding hard questions. Those questions aren't going away. I hope that as someone who says he's fighting for the truth, you will at least carefully consider the evidence I laid out.

If at any time you feel like writing a response, my offer remains open to print it next to my piece.

Sincerely,
Mark
*******************

Date: May 20, 2007
Subject: A website about your claims from Mark Roberts
To: wtcbill@gmail.com


Dear William,

I have created a website where I discuss many of your claims about 9/11:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

I hope you will take the time to read it carefully. I will gladly post your response to any or all of my points.

Sincerely,
Mark Roberts
*******************My first email to Mr. Rodriguez was on May 20, 2007