Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Belz...]

You might want to go back to NWO agent training.

:rolleyes:

[Swing Dangler]

Misrepresentation error.

From Mark's paper here (http://911stories.googlepages.com/morerodriguezclaims).
"The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA" Source


That's an outright lie. Rodriguez himself spoke to leaders of the NIST investigation. NIST produced the 10,000 page engineering study that is the "official" version of the tower collapses. Their investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 is ongoing. Independent engineering investigations into the collapses were done. None support the conspiracist claims in any way. No relevant experts who studied the issues agree with the conspiracy-mongers.


Here is the original quote from Mark’s source:

William spent hours testifying before the 9-11 Commission behind closed doors. His testimony as an eye witness does not appear anywhere in the 576 page report. But after all, Bush told us who did it, so why bother to examine the evidence or talk with the witnesses. The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA.

Mark, using deceptive and dishonest tactic (or very sloppy research) tries to attribute this FEMA quote to William. However, if one only checks the facts, this quote is from the author of the article, Deanna Spingola not William Rodriquez. But instead of being factual, Mark again labels William a liar based upon a quote he didn't even make.

Why did you attribute this quote to William, Mark, when he didn't say it? Was it to manufacture a lie to be attributed to William or was it just an error?

Someone may want to quote this because Gravy has me on ignore.

[Totovader]

Misrepresentation error.


Here is the original quote from Mark’s source:


Mark, using deceptive and dishonest tactic (or very sloppy research) tries to attribute this FEMA quote to William. However, if one only checks the facts, this quote is from the author of the article, Deanna Spingola not William Rodriquez. But instead of being factual, Mark again labels William a liar based upon a quote he didn't even make.

Why did you attribute this quote to William, Mark, when he didn't say it? Was it to manufacture a lie to be attributed to William or was it just an error?

Someone may want to quote this because Gravy has me on ignore.

I don't see that he does attribute the quote to Rodriguez (although the page is "More Rodriguez claims", he is sourcing the article)- at worst Gravy is assuming that the information was obtained from Rodriguez, which I would think is a fair assumption.

However, your disagreement with this would indicate that you disagree with the author (and probably Rodriguez).

Could you explain why Rodriguez failed to "correct" Mark on this insignificant fact? Or why Rodriguez failed to correct the article itself? Do you believe that Rodriguez disagrees with the assertion in the article, or did it possibly come from him (although it was not a quote)?

Again, if this is the best you can come up with- your position isn't very solid.

[beachnut]

Someone may want to quote this because Gravy has me on ignore.
Your post was not worth the quote. You are quibbling about BS stuff SD. You have lost this point, so why even quote the junk you are quibbling about. So far you are 0, zero, zip. Give up, the only person who can correct these errors and lies is William. William has to correct the bad press errors which he was responsible for. Only William, you have failed here as you do on all topic about 9/11. Why is all of 9/11 truth so dumb?

[Swing Dangler]

Actually, I don't see it either. Burning jet fuel can cause burns and nothing else, because it generates a lot of heat and very little blast. A hot plate can cause burns because it transmits some heat and produces no blast. High explosives can only cause burns together with other injuries because they produce intense blast in the region where they generate enough heat to cause burns. Therefore, the injuries seen could have been caused by jet fuel, and couldn't have been caused by HE, because they require heat without intense blast.

Care to spell out where your irony comes into it?

Dave

I guess you have some explaining to do...PATH level platform cave-in, collapsed wall, parking garage gone, destroyed machine shop, legs chopped off(although not in the basement) people being blown back and knocked down, etc...you know lots of things that fit perfectly and follow quite expectedly a high explosive event.

I've already presented expert statements that burns are associated with high explosive events there is no need to state otherwise, unless you want to argue with the sources I quoted.

[RedIbis]

You don't seem to understand the importance of the difference between the two versions, Red. In short, it could very well be mere paraphrasing.

I've got a $100 to the charity of your choice that says I didn't paraphrase. You can wager the same to a charity of my choice if Rodriguez posts here and substantiates the email.

This will be the last time I explain this. I cut and pasted out of the email from Rodriguez to me. There was a lot of unnecessary spacing. I cut it out, cut out an h and replaced it with a capital H by mistake.

You guys are grasping at strawmen if you think this is a big deal or that it invalidates my initial claim.

Totovader will not accept this simple challenge.

[Totovader]

I guess you have some explaining to do...PATH level platform cave-in, collapsed wall, parking garage gone, destroyed machine shop, legs chopped off(although not in the basement) people being blown back and knocked down, etc...you know lots of things that fit perfectly and follow quite expectedly a high explosive event.

I've already presented expert statements that burns are associated with high explosive events there is no need to state otherwise, unless you want to argue with the sources I quoted.

You're contradicting yourself, here- or rather, ignoring the post itself and then just replying with "I guess you have some explaining to do" as if that's a valid response.

As he pointed out- burns of this type are not associated with explosives. "Burns" is not the question- it's these kinds of burns (your fallacy of equivocation). The fact that stuff fell down is... not the least bit unexpected. Furthermore, claiming that it had to be explosives when there's no evidence of explosives is obviously a bit of a problem...

[Totovader]

I've got a $100 to the charity of your choice that says I didn't paraphrase. You can wager the same to a charity of my choice if Rodriguez posts here and substantiates the email.

This will be the last time I explain this. I cut and pasted out of the email from Rodriguez to me. There was a lot of unnecessary spacing. I cut it out, cut out an h and replaced it with a capital H by mistake.

You guys are grasping at strawmen if you think this is a big deal or that it invalidates my initial claim.

Totovader will not accept this simple challenge.

Stop lying- I accepted your Challenge, refuted your claim, and have not yet received confirmation of your payment to the IAFF.

Your explanation makes no sense, and has changed more than once.

Do you even know what a strawman is?

And if you think your original claim is "a big deal or that it invalidates the claim", you're high. You're shooting yourself in the foot, here.

[dbalsdon]

So why should anyone believe your word, over Gravy's about this? Just copying and pasting something that you claim to be from an email, doesn't mean it is from an email.

Hell, while were at it.. I received an email from Dylan Avery the other day, claiming that LC is just a joke. This is an extract from it


I created Loose Change to to expose to the world, how many idiots there are that believe any **** they see online.



Now, prove I didn't receive that email please?

[Totovader]

In summary (and finality), here's what we know:

1) There is no evidence "Mark lied".
2) Yet, the claim is still made... and unsupported.
3) Even if Rodriguez did say "Mark lied", that's not proof that he did- and there's no proof Rodriguez clarified that in the first place.
4) The nitpicking itself is insignificant. If Mark had any reason to change it- I see no reason to expect that he would not.
5) Furthermore, Rodriguez never sent these corrections to Mark- to call him a liar and then never bother to try to make those "corrections" when it demands such on the page itself is inconsistent.

Therefore, my original wager is far more prudent, and irrefutable. Mark never received the corrections, and Red cannot explain how it would be pertinent to be in error.

[Par]

I've got a $100 to the charity of your choice that says I didn't paraphrase... I cut and pasted out of the email from Rodriguez to me. There was a lot of unnecessary spacing. I cut it out, cut out an h and replaced it with a capital H by mistake. You guys are grasping at strawmen if you think this is a big deal or that it invalidates my initial claim.


If you intend to continue using the term “stawman”, you may wish to disabuse yourself of your evident ignorance as to its meaning.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=Totovader;3230283]I don't see that he does attribute the quote to Rodriguez (although the page is "More Rodriguez claims", he is sourcing the article)- at worst Gravy is assuming that the information was obtained from Rodriguez, which I would think is a fair assumption.
However, your disagreement with this would indicate that you disagree with the author (and probably Rodriguez).

LOL. Exactly...More Rodriguez claims....and did you not read the following sentence from Mark:"That's an outright lie. Rodriguez himself spoke to leaders of the NIST investigation."

There is no need to assume, it is clear as day in the article. William did not make that statement.

One I do not see where Rodriguez made the claim that FEMA was..."The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA" especially considering his closed door testimony.
And of course I disagree with the author on that sentence.

Could you explain why Rodriguez failed to "correct" Mark on this insignificant fact?
You mean significant error?
Nope. Ask him. What would be the point in "peer-reviewing" a paper that is an entire hit piece on him, anyway? Especially when people who can read can do it within a few seconds as I did.

One question for you, why haven't Debunker's corrected Mark on his error or for that matter any of the errors? Oh that is right, its not about debunking with regards to Mark, its about cheer leading.

Do you believe that Rodriguez disagrees with the assertion in the article, or did it possibly come from him (although it was not a quote)?
Of course Rodriguez would disagree with that sentence especially considering the information about NIST. And no, I do not think it came from William. There is nothing indicated that it came from him, especially considering the description of NIST after the sentence in question.

Again, if this is the best you can come up with- your position isn't very solid.

That is the best I can come up with it and my position? It is not a 'position'.
Re-read the title of the thread, chief-Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

This is the third error I've pointed out thus far in this thread and more to come.

[RedIbis]

If you intend to continue using the term “stawman”, you may wish to disabuse yourself of your evident ignorance as to its meaning.

I'm well aware of the formal definition. I was simply punning on the phrase, grasping at straws.

[Swing Dangler]

So why should anyone believe your word, over Gravy's about this? Just copying and pasting something that you claim to be from an email, doesn't mean it is from an email.
Hell, while were at it.. I received an email from Dylan Avery the other day, claiming that LC is just a joke. This is an extract from it
Now, prove I didn't receive that email please?

I find it quite comical the amount of lambasting that Redibis is getting for quoting an email.

Is there any reason you haven't lambasted Gravy for using an email that hasn't been provided or authenticated?

In Mark Robert's paper, this quote is attributed to William “I only deal with people with PH'd's. Doctorates in the matter. Serious researchers.”

However,the source is an unverifiable email letter to Len Colby so we cannot check the accuracy of the quote as we need to.
Why do we need to? See the quote deception surrounding Danna Spingola.

My question to those attacking Red, why do you accept Gravy's source based upon an email from William Rod. to Len Colby as factual but do not accept Red's email from William as factual?

Ahhh the hypocrisies of debunkers doesn't surprise me anymore.

[Totovader]

LOL. Exactly...More Rodriguez claims....and did you not read the following sentence from Mark:"That's an outright lie. Rodriguez himself spoke to leaders of the NIST investigation."

However, it does not say "Rodriguez is lying here". It does not support your accusation.

There is no need to assume, it is clear as day in the article. William did not make that statement.

On the contrary- I believe it would be safe to assume he did, since the article is about him. However, if he did not- like I said- I'm sure Mark would have no problem clarifying the statement.

One I do not see where Rodriguez made the claim that FEMA was..."The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA" especially considering his closed door testimony.
And of course I disagree with the author on that sentence.




You mean significant error?

No- it's pretty gosh darn insignificant, kiddo.

Nope. Ask him. What would be the point in "peer-reviewing" a paper that is an entire hit piece on him, anyway? Especially when people who can read can do it within a few seconds as I did.

Apparently, you don't understand what peer-review means.

The point of correcting any mistakes Mark may have made would be to get to the truth. I guess that's not your goal. If Mark absolutely refuses to "fix" any "mistakes", then it would be obvious that's not his goal, either. Since he has been very open about doing this, and can provide several examples where he has, you're up a creek.

One question for you, why haven't Debunker's corrected Mark on his error or for that matter any of the errors? Oh that is right, its not about debunking with regards to Mark, its about cheer leading.

This statement is false. Many "debunkers" have corrected some of Mark's errors, and Mark has corrected the errors of other "debunkers". I don't think you grasp the point, here- we're all very happy to provide the findings of our research to others and correct mistakes that we have made. Again, this concept would be foreign to you since the truth is not your goal.

Of course Rodriguez would disagree with that sentence especially considering the information about NIST. And no, I do not think it came from William. There is nothing indicated that it came from him, especially considering the description of NIST after the sentence in question.

I disagree- but it's a fairly moot point, anyway. Mark's position is still correct- and you happen to agree with him on it. (what are you, his cheerleader?)

That is the best I can come up with it and my position? It is not a 'position'.

The first sentence makes no sense, I'm not sure that downgrading your position helps your case.

Re-read the title of the thread, chief-Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

Re-read the thread itself- the score is still 0.

This is the third error I've pointed out thus far in this thread and more to come.

On the contrary- your "errors" have been pointed out as inconsistent and useless. You're nitpicking on insignificant issues and entirely incapable of defending Rodriguez (or the WEALTH of other information Mark has compiled). That nitpicking is the result of you- not only being forced to confront the evidence- but being put in a position where you have nothing to address it with. Though this thread is specifically about Mark- because of his research, it's terribly damaging to the conspiracist movement itself. I'm absolutely positive you can see this- it shows in your petty squirming.

[Totovader]

I'm well aware of the formal definition. I was simply punning on the phrase, grasping at straws.

The "formal definition"? Is that a euphemism for... the definition?

Your pun makes no sense.

[RedIbis]

[QUOTE]

What would be the point in "peer-reviewing" a paper that is an entire hit piece on him, anyway? Especially when people who can read can do it within a few seconds as I did.

One question for you, why haven't Debunker's corrected Mark on his error or for that matter any of the errors? Oh that is right, its not about debunking with regards to Mark, its about cheer leading.


.

Would you mind if I just quote this (bolded) for each instance that someone makes the ridiculous point that Rodriguez should waste his time responding whenver a "debunker" makes specious claims about him?

[Totovader]

My question to those attacking Red, why do you accept Gravy's source based upon an email from William Rod. to Len Colby as factual but do not accept Red's email from William as factual?

Before I turn this back on you- let me ask you why you think this is inconsistent? You've arrived at what you think is a contradiction- are you sure your premises are correct?

[Totovader]

Would you mind if I just quote this (bolded) for each instance that someone makes the ridiculous point that Rodriguez should waste his time responding whenver a "debunker" makes specious claims about him?

I do- because it's pathetic and useless.

Now all the sudden Mark is no threat? Now all the sudden Willie is too busy to deal with people correcting his lies?

Come on... this is absurd. You just shot your other foot. You're running out of feet.

[RedIbis]

My question to those attacking Red, why do you accept Gravy's source based upon an email from William Rod. to Len Colby as factual but do not accept Red's email from William as factual?



Here's the big difference as I see it: When I first posted the email from WRod addressing Gravy's claims, Gravy responded immediately and in depth. Gravy knew that the diction and details were from WRod(sorry but I'm a huge Yankees fan). He didn't challenge the authenticity.

Totvader challenged me and has backpedaled since. It's a basic challenge. If he thinks the email is in any way (uh, besides the infamous "H") a fraud, I wagered that WRod would verify. It's very simple.

[Totovader]

RedIbis claims that his copying and pasting of an email resulted from some sort of an error of having too many spaces, and then inadvertently deleting a character, replacing it with the upper case of that character and then adding a comma.

In reality, the differences are a bit more complex than that. His explanation not only does not make any sense, but is contradicted by the posts he has made.

Here are the two versions of what RedIbis claims are the same email, with the bolded parts indicating a change:


Dear Mr. Redibis, I usually do not respond to people with pseudonyms but I will make an exemption.
About your question: Mark Roberts is a liar. I did speak to him briefly at Ground Zero when I kindly protected him from attacks of people protesting in the area. They wanted me to embarrass the guy in front of everybody having an argument with him there. I did not like that approach and did not go with it. He walked with me up to the front of where the names of the victims used to be (across of Century 21 store).His recollections are totally incorrect about what I told him of smelling Kerosene. I said to him that I DID smell some kind of gas as I went up the floors. Not in the basement like he lies about. I am not doubting if anyone smelled any kind of gas like elements in the area, if that was their experience, but in my case.. he lied.

Also he goes around implying that I am an Anti-Semite and also questioning as you may see in the thread the work I have done for the victims of 9/11 through my organization. Let him contact the people from the same picture he posted,Ex- Governor Pataki or his staff and let's find out what they have to say about it.

Also I have never told him I was 100 feet from the Towers, He lied about that as well.


Dear Mr. Redibis, I usually do not respond to people with pseudonyms but I will make an exemption.
About your question: Mark Roberts is a liar. I did speak to him briefly at Ground Zero when I kindly protected him from attacks of people protesting in the area. They wanted me to embarrass the guy in front of everybody having an argument with him there. I did not like that approach and did not go with it. He walked with me up to the front where the names of the victims used to be (across from the Century 21 store). His recollections are totally incorrect about what I told him of smelling Kerosene. I said to him that I DID smell some kind of gas as I went up the floors. Not in the basement like he lies about. I am not doubting if anyone smelled any kind of gas like elements in the area if that was their experience, but in my case.. he lied.

Also he goes around implying that I am an Anti-Semite and also questioning as you may see in the thread the work I have done for the victims of 9/11 through my organization. Let him contact the people from the same picture he posted, ex- Governor Pataki or his staff and let's find out what they have to say about it.

Also I have never told him I was 100 feet from the Towers he lied about that as well.
He implied that Malaysia, because it is a Muslim country, has serious Human Rights violations. Use his same links to Amnesty International and show how many more violations we have here in the USA. Selective bias? I think so. I guess he will never tour in Kuala Lumpur.

William Rodriguez

Are these differences significant? No- but that's the point. I'm simply pointing out that this could not have been a copy/paste error, and it's impossible for both versions to be copied directly from the same email because they are different. Whether Rodriguez actually sent the email or not really does not matter, however, since RedIbis is unwilling to verify the email- this is the only evidence we have to go on that his claims are inconsistent. I'm sure he fails to notice the significance of whining about nitpicking when that's exactly what he's doing.

[Gravy]

I don't see that he does attribute the quote to Rodriguez (although the page is "More Rodriguez claims", he is sourcing the article)- at worst Gravy is assuming that the information was obtained from Rodriguez, which I would think is a fair assumption.

However, your disagreement with this would indicate that you disagree with the author (and probably Rodriguez).

Could you explain why Rodriguez failed to "correct" Mark on this insignificant fact? Or why Rodriguez failed to correct the article itself? Do you believe that Rodriguez disagrees with the assertion in the article, or did it possibly come from him (although it was not a quote)?

Again, if this is the best you can come up with- your position isn't very solid.Spignola met Rodriguez, and in her article she quotes him numerous times, and paraphrases him. These quotes and paraphrases are all consistent with Rodriguez's story. Are we to believe that she made this up for some reason, and that Rodriguez chose not to correct her or me?

Let's look at this in context:

William spent hours testifying before the 9-11 Commission behind closed doors. His testimony as an eye witness does not appear anywhere in the 576 page report. But after all, Bush told us who did it, so why bother to examine the evidence or talk with the witnesses. The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA.

The National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST), an independent investigative group ignored his plea to tell his story. He contacted them four times but never got a response. NIST was funded by the government which gives you a pretty good idea of just how subjective their findings were. They were paid $35 million dollars and the investigation lasted two years. The taxpayers certainly did not get their money's worth.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762Besides all the things that are wrong in those two paragraphs, I'm sure everyone spots the hilariously obvious contradiction. Oh, and of course he's lying about NIST not talking with him, as we all know. Somehow he just forgot to tell them about those bombs in the basement.

ETA: by the way, the Rodriguez talk that Spignola attended was organized and funded by the neo-Nazi-run American Free Press. Holocaust denier Eric Hufschmid also helped fund the event.

The more you look, the uglier it gets.

[Swing Dangler]

However, it does not say "Rodriguez is lying here". It does not support your accusation.

Really? The title of the page is: More Rodriguez Claims with what appears to be quotes from William Rod. throughout the page. But yet you want us to believe that Rodriguez did not make the FEMA quote?

On the contrary- I believe it would be safe to assume he did, since the article is about him. However, if he did not- like I said- I'm sure Mark would have no problem clarifying the statement.

No- it's pretty gosh darn insignificant, kiddo
Matter of opinion. The quote is an attempt to label William a liar. That is pretty significant in my opinion. Compiled with the other errors, they all add up to hogwash.



Apparently, you don't understand what peer-review means.
Sure I do. See the "peer review thread" where I fully proved that the Journal of 9/11 Studies was a peer-reviewed journal. In this thread, that comment was meant to be sarcastic.

The point of correcting any mistakes Mark may have made would be to get to the truth. I guess that's not your goal.
Really? Why have I corrected him then in each error that I've posted? Apparently getting to the truth is not your goal or you would have corrected it when you first read the paper.

You have read it, correct?

If Mark absolutely refuses to "fix" any "mistakes", then it would be obvious that's not his goal, either. Since he has been very open about doing this, and can provide several examples where he has, you're up a creek.

I don't recall stating Mark refuses to fix mistakes.

This statement is false. Many "debunkers" have corrected some of Mark's errors,
Can you site where "debunkers" have corrected parts of the William Rod. paper he wrote?

and Mark has corrected the errors of other "debunkers". I don't think you grasp the point, here- we're all very happy to provide the findings of our research to others and correct mistakes that we have made. Again, this concept would be foreign to you since the truth is not your goal.
If that were so, I wouldn't be correcting or posting these errors of his.


Re-read the thread itself- the score is still 0. I didn't realize it was a game to you. 3 errors is not a score, just a simple fact.



On the contrary- your "errors" have been pointed out as inconsistent and useless.
Source?

You're nitpicking on insignificant issues and entirely incapable of defending Rodriguez (or the WEALTH of other information Mark has compiled). That nitpicking is the result of you- not only being forced to confront the evidence- but being put in a position where you have nothing to address it with. Though this thread is specifically about Mark- because of his research, it's terribly damaging to the conspiracist movement itself. I'm absolutely positive you can see this- it shows in your petty squirming.
:lolsign:


RedIbis [QUOTE][QUOTE] [quote=Swing Dangler;3230363]
Quote:What would be the point in "peer-reviewing" a paper that is an entire hit piece on him, anyway? Especially when people who can read can do it within a few seconds as I did.
One question for you, why haven't Debunker's corrected Mark on his error or for that matter any of the errors? Oh that is right, its not about debunking with regards to Mark, its about cheer leading.

Would you mind if I just quote this (bolded) for each instance that someone makes the ridiculous point that Rodriguez should waste his time responding whenver a "debunker" makes specious claims about him?

Not at all! I would be flattered! ;)

Next error, coming up!

[RedIbis]

RedIbis claims that his copying and pasting of an email resulted from some sort of an error of having too many spaces, and then inadvertently deleting a character, replacing it with the upper case of that character and then adding a comma.

In reality, the differences are a bit more complex than that. His explanation not only does not make any sense, but is contradicted by the posts he has made.

Here are the two versions of what RedIbis claims are the same email, with the bolded parts indicating a change:





Are these differences significant? No- but that's the point. I'm simply pointing out that this could not have been a copy/paste error, and it's impossible for both versions to be copied directly from the same email because they are different. Whether Rodriguez actually sent the email or not really does not matter, however, since RedIbis is unwilling to verify the email- this is the only evidence we have to go on that his claims are inconsistent. I'm sure he fails to notice the significance of whining about nitpicking when that's exactly what he's doing.


There's exactly one word, a single preposition, that has been changed. No other words were changed.

My next bet is that those places where punctuation or capitalization changed is exactly where the spacing had to be cut out. In my haste I could see cutting too many spaces out and my editor instincts kicked in and changed that one character. You might have solved the crime of the century with that one.

Now this is an example of why you're deceptive and not worth my time:

since RedIbis is unwilling to verify the email- this is the only evidence we have to go on that his claims are inconsistent.

You're not interested in the verification of the email, which I've wagered I could do. You've obfuscated, avoided, and basically danced around the real issue: Rodriguez disputes Mark's claims, and that's what the email said and that's what this thread is about. So in deference to the mods and jref, I won't be taking a ride on the Totavader carousel with this nonsense anymore.

[Totovader]

Here's the big difference as I see it: When I first posted the email from WRod addressing Gravy's claims, Gravy responded immediately and in depth. Gravy knew that the diction and details were from WRod(sorry but I'm a huge Yankees fan). He didn't challenge the authenticity.

Totvader challenged me and has backpedaled since. It's a basic challenge. If he thinks the email is in any way (uh, besides the infamous "H") a fraud, I wagered that WRod would verify. It's very simple.

This is the 2nd time you have lied regarding the challenge. I have never backpeddled- I offered a much more pertinent set of challenges, and you refused. However, I still pointed out the inconsistencies in your claim- proving that it would be impossible for both to be a copy and paste from the same email. You have not yet provided verification of your payment.

You have refused to authenticate the email, and have not responded to these inconsistencies with any reasonable explanation. You cannot simply ignore the inconsistencies in the two versions because they prove that your copy and paste could not have come from the same email- therefore just saying "uh, besides" is not going to cut it.

You're also ignoring the theme, here- whether an exchange similar to this (since it would be impossible for this exact exchange to take place) occurred, it doesn't matter. William not only never sent these "corrections" to Mark (another $100), but the "corrections" do not affect the claim whatsoever (yet another $100), furthermore it's most definitely not proof that Mark lied (in fact, it's pretty silly to think he did since the supposed error does not affect the argument whatsoever).

It's obvious you're too much of a coward to own up- so I will have to just keep referring to this post in what will certainly be more pathetic and libelous attempts.

[SDC]

[quote=Swing Dangler;3230532][quote]
Sure I do. See the "peer review thread" where I fully proved that the Journal of 9/11 Studies was a peer-reviewed journal. In this thread, that comment was meant to be sarcastic.

[quote]

You did nothing of the kind. You made various assertions, proving nothing, and providing nothing except wind.

[Arus808]

wow, red, you may want to learn to PREVIEW Your replies so you dont abuse the quote tags.

[RedIbis]

wow, red, you may want to learn to PREVIEW Your replies so you dont abuse the quote tags.

I did that exactly once on this thread (not that I claim to be an expert at the internets). Will you be making the same snide comment to SDC, right above you?

[Totovader]

Really? The title of the page is: More Rodriguez Claims with what appears to be quotes from William Rod. throughout the page. But yet you want us to believe that Rodriguez did not make the FEMA quote?

Appears? I never said Rodriguez did not make the quote- I said that although the article is not quoting him- it's reasonable to assume that the information came from Rodriguez.

Do you understand the difference? Is this going over your head? You seem to be struggling...

Matter of opinion. The quote is an attempt to label William a liar. That is pretty significant in my opinion. Compiled with the other errors, they all add up to hogwash.

Yet all you can do is nitpick on this one? That's not a matter of opinion at all- that's you shoving a flashlight up Mark's rectum and looking for the smallest scrap of dirt. When you can't find one, you start complaining about the process. Really, this is getting ridiculous.

I wish you conspiracists would have just admitted the futility right from the start: if you are forced to examine the evidence, you can't win. Your position is not based on evidence, it's based on faith. When you try and confuse the two, you end up with this nitpicky whining nonsense- and it exposes your position as weak and unsubstantiated.

Sure I do. See the "peer review thread" where I fully proved that the Journal of 9/11 Studies was a peer-reviewed journal. In this thread, that comment was meant to be sarcastic.

I don't see why using the wrong terminology would help your case or be "sarcastic". I never mentioned anything about peer-review, and it's pretty obvious that it has nothing to do with this thread... Some things are only funny in your head, I guess.

Really? Why have I corrected him then in each error that I've posted? Apparently getting to the truth is not your goal or you would have corrected it when you first read the paper.

You have read it, correct?

That doesn't make any sense.

I don't recall stating Mark refuses to fix mistakes.

Wait- you're admitting he does?

I don't think that's a good position for you to take...

Can you site where "debunkers" have corrected parts of the William Rod. paper he wrote?

No, I'll ignore your red herring for now.

If that were so, I wouldn't be correcting or posting these errors of his.

I don't follow- and I fail to see the significance.

I didn't realize it was a game to you. 3 errors is not a score, just a simple fact.

You must have misread- it's 0, not 3.

Source?

Um... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100488)

[Arus808]

I did that exactly once on this thread (not that I claim to be an expert at the internets). Will you be making the same snide comment to SDC, right above you?


seeing that it only takes one person to point out the abuse of the quote tags, if Swing is actually interested, he'd also take heed about PREVIEWING before posting. This will also show that he is READING replies instead of ignoring them, as he's been doing.

Its not snide at all. If you want people to understand what you are posting, you best hope that you are using the forum tags correctly, and the best way to do that is to PREVIEW your reply before hitting the submit button.

[Totovader]

There's exactly one word, a single preposition, that has been changed. No other words were changed.

The two versions posted above prove this statement wrong.

My next bet is that those places where punctuation or capitalization changed is exactly where the spacing had to be cut out.

Your next bet? This is even more damaging. You went from "I don't know" to "this is probably what happened" to "this IS what happened" to "my next bet"... You seem to be struggling to find an answer to what should be obvious.

In my haste I could see cutting too many spaces out and my editor instincts kicked in and changed that one character. You might have solved the crime of the century with that one.

Downplaying this doesn't help your case when I've already said that the changes are fairly insignificant to the message (except that the expose you as a fraud).

Like I said many times, copying and pasting does not cause changes in case, the addition of punctuation, or changing of entire words (if you're claiming that you're "editing" Willie's email, you just put the final nail in the coffin).

Why would you edit an email when just copying and pasting it again would be accurate? Furthermore, why would copying and pasting fail to the point that certain words can edited?

Now this is an example of why you're deceptive and not worth my time:

So you're backpeddling on the wager?

You're not interested in the verification of the email, which I've wagered I could do.

It's difficult for you to maintain this position since I've spent just about every post demanding you do so.

You've obfuscated, avoided, and basically danced around the real issue: Rodriguez disputes Mark's claims, and that's what the email said and that's what this thread is about.

Really- because that's exactly what I've been addressing in these posts. Liar.

So in deference to the mods and jref, I won't be taking a ride on the Totavader carousel with this nonsense anymore.

And thusly, refusing to make your payment. How convenient. Coward.

[RedIbis]

seeing that it only takes one person to point out the abuse of the quote tags, if Swing is actually interested, he'd also take heed about PREVIEWING before posting. This will also show that he is READING replies instead of ignoring them, as he's been doing.

Its not snide at all. If you want people to understand what you are posting, you best hope that you are using the forum tags correctly, and the best way to do that is to PREVIEW your reply before hitting the submit button.

Perhaps I misunderstood, allow me to rephrase the question:

What the heck are you talking about?

You don't like the quote tags? If the initial quote is sourced, isn't it acceptable to simply wrap the rest in quote tags. This is convenient and obviously easy to understand since I see Gravy, Toto and many others doing it.

If you're talking about the code screwing up the quote box, I'm guilty of that, as are many others.

So why are you even bringing this nonsense up? And why am I wasting my time trying to figure this out?

[RedIbis]

Coward.

Is this what you call the Bruce Lee effect?

[Par]

Sure I do. See the "peer review thread" where I fully proved that the Journal of 9/11 Studies was a peer-reviewed journal.


Oh, yes. I remember.

...is there a holocaust denial degree you can earn? Or are there credentials in a holocaust denial class you have taken? If not, [holocaust denial journals cannot be peer reviewed]. A peer review... journal is one in which each feature article has been examined by people with credentials in the article's field of study before it is published.
No, there are no such things as degrees in Holocaust denial. Nor, however, are there such things as degrees in 9/11 denial. Thus, by your own measure, Jones’ effort cannot be a genuinely peer-reviewed publication.


Good job.

[Swing Dangler]

This is pretty significant in its relationship to what happened in the lobby.

Here is the quote from Mark's Paper found here (http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower%3Awitnessaccounts%2Clobb).

Gravy's link http://www.unison.ie/features/911oneyearon/stories.php?ca=261&si=823151
to the quote is no longer available.

Ronnie Clifford and Jennianne Maffeo
At around 8.45am, Ronnie walked into the lobby of the Marriott, which was connected to the lobby of the north tower by a revolving door. As he was checking his yellow tie in a mirror, he felt a massive explosion, followed several seconds later by a reverberation, a warping effect that he describes as the "harmonic tolerance of a building that's shaking like a tuning fork". He peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. It was filling with haze. People were scurrying to escape what had become a "hurricane of flying debris".

Then the revolving door turned with a suctioning sound followed by a hot burst of wind, and in came a mannequin of the future. A woman, naked, dazed, her arms outstretched. She was so badly burned that Ronnie had no idea what race she was or how old she might be. She clawed the air with fingernails turned porcelain-white. The zipper of what had once been a sweater had melted into her chest, as if it were the zipper to her own body. Her hair had been singed to a crisp steel wool. With her, in the gust of the door, came a pungent odour, the smell of kerosene or paraffin, Ronnie thought.

Then the mannequin became a person, crying for help. Ronnie had little idea what had happened to her, or where exactly she had come from, but he knew that whoever she was, she was his responsibility now.

Now if we examine the original we find Mark Robert's omitting a key fact from the story. From this source (http://www.booknoise.net/americana/excerpts/index.html) itself:Around 8:45 Ronnie Clifford walked into the lobby of the World Trade Center Marriott, which was connected to the north tower by a revolving door. He checked his yellow silk tie in a mirror and took a deep breath, preparing himself to take the elevator up. Then he felt a massive explosion, followed several seconds later by a kind of reverberation, a strange warping effect that Ronnie describes as “the harmonic tolerances of a building that’s shaking like a tuning fork." Baffled, Ronnie peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. He could see it was filling with black haze. People were scurrying to escape what had become an “incredible hurricane of flying debris.”

Yet Ronnie remained untouched. It was as though the revolving door were a glass portal to another realm, a world of chaos and soot just inches away. The Marriott lobby was calm, the marble surfaces polished and antiseptic. For a few seconds, the two adjacent worlds did not meet.

Then the revolving door turned with a suctioning sound followed by a sudden burst of hot wind, and out came a mannequin of the future. A woman, naked, dazed, her arms outstretched, her hands swollen and blistered beyond recognition. She was so badly burned Ronnie had no idea what race she was or how old she might be. She clawed the air with long warped fingernails turned porcelain white. Her skin was black and glistening red. The zipper of what was once a sweater had melted into her chest, as though it were the zipper to her own body. The woman’s hair was singed to a crisp steel wool, and her barrette was pressed into the back of her head. Her blackened eyes were welded shut. With her, in the warm gust of the revolving door, came a pungent odor, the smell of kerosene or paraffin, Ronnie thought.

The bolded part is the part Mark Roberts left out his paper.

Yet Ronnie remained untouched. It was as though the revolving door were a glass portal to another realm, a world of chaos and soot just inches away. The Marriott lobby was calm, the marble surfaces polished and antiseptic. For a few seconds, the two adjacent worlds did not meet.

The revolving door is just across the south side of elevators 6 and 7. He didn't see a fireball coming from eleveator 6 or 7 that could be 2 out of the 3 explanations for origins from the impact zone. The glass is still intact. But the glass on the westfront is broken. And the marble panels on the west-wall of the core removed.

This proves that the shafts of 6 and 7 weren't the origin of the damage in the lobby and 50 has already been ruled out for the basement damage.
Whats left? Of all lobby-accounts this is the most incriminating part for the official version.
Perhaps this is why Mark left out that part of the lobby story....to support the official version.

1. Why did you leave out that bolded portion of the account, Mark?

Someone may want to quote this as Mark has me on ignore. As good debunkers in search of the truth, you may want to have Mark included the removed portion of the account in his paper. I would hate to have to question his motivation, honesty, and integrity.

[Totovader]

Is this what you call the Bruce Lee effect?

Is this what you call answering the question?

I don't know if you think this is some kind of threat or what- but it's pretty obvious you think you're clever in posting quotes from videos on my YouTube page... why that's supposed to be significant is beyond me, but it's clear you're
"grasping at straws".

[Gravy]

I'd like to request that the William Rodriguez fans here contact him with any problems you see with my paper about him. I have repeatedly said (including directly to him) that Rodriguez is welcome to contact me with any corrections. He has not done so, nor has he attempted to refute my work in another venues that I'm aware of. Therefore I am confident that the information in the paper accurately reflects Rodriguez's claims.

[pomeroo]

I guess you have some explaining to do...PATH level platform cave-in, collapsed wall, parking garage gone, destroyed machine shop, legs chopped off(although not in the basement) people being blown back and knocked down, etc...you know lots of things that fit perfectly and follow quite expectedly a high explosive event.

I've already presented expert statements that burns are associated with high explosive events there is no need to state otherwise, unless you want to argue with the sources I quoted.


You were caught again, Swingie. How can you hope to sneak your clumsy deceptions past people who are so much brighter than you? You presented expert statements showing that burns can ACCOMPANY other signs of explosives-related injury. You have not, AS YOU KNOW, shown that burns alone suggest the use of explosives.

[DGM]

You were caught again, Swingie. How can you hope to sneak your clumsy deceptions past people who are so much brighter than you? You presented expert statements showing that burns can ACCOMPANY other signs of explosives-related injury. You have not, AS YOU KNOW, shown that burns alone suggest the use of explosives.
I liked the "parking garage gone".

Where did it go Swing?

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=Gravy;3230674]I'd like to request that the William Rodriguez fans here contact him with any problems you see with my paper about him.
Request denied! ;)

See the problem is you wrote a paper that has lots of stuff all intended to support a hit piece on William. He didn't write a hit piece on himself. You wrote it...and poorly.
Why should he speak with you anyway?
1. Your not a journalist.
2. Your not a media representative.
3. Your not a government official.
4. Your a tour guide who wrote a hit piece on someone who saved some lives on 9/11.
Now perhaps if you can get a proper media outlet to promote your hit piece then William might be interested in refuting it.

I have repeatedly said (including directly to him) that Rodriguez is welcome to contact me with any corrections.
Many errors don't necessitate contact with him at all. Mostly those I've pointed out so far require no contact whatsoever. Like the paragraph that you omitted in your lobby account, your "tnt-burn" comment, your misquotes and misrepresentations, etc. and more to follow.

Therefore I am confident that the information in the paper accurately reflects Rodriguez's claims.[/QUOTE
This couldn't be further from the truth.

Stick around, there are more errors that I'm going to post about your paper!

[uk_dave]

Maybe Willie should sue Mark.... Swingie, you could represent him in court couldn't you?

I'd pay to watch that. :degrin:

[SDC]

seeing that it only takes one person to point out the abuse of the quote tags, if Swing is actually interested, he'd also take heed about PREVIEWING before posting. This will also show that he is READING replies instead of ignoring them, as he's been doing.

Its not snide at all. If you want people to understand what you are posting, you best hope that you are using the forum tags correctly, and the best way to do that is to PREVIEW your reply before hitting the submit button.

Ah, go ahead and abuse me, as R.Ibis suggested you should. I can take it. I've been married for 29 yrs 9 mos.

[Totovader]

Request denied! ;)

That certainly doesn't help your case.

See the problem is you wrote a paper that has lots of stuff all intended to support a hit piece on William.

Ignoring the "hit piece" assertion- why does this mean Willie can't respond?

He didn't write a hit piece on himself. You wrote it...and poorly.

What the crap is the point, here?

Why should he speak with you anyway?

Because he has publicly refuted the statements Willie has made. And that's no joke.

1. Your not a journalist.

Ad hominem.

2. Your not a media representative.

Of course- they're all "in on it", anyway.

Ad hominem.

3. Your not a government official.

Again, contradictory.

Ad hominem.

4. Your a tour guide who wrote a hit piece on someone who saved some lives on 9/11.

Lovely ad hominem with a dash of appeal to emotion.

Look at what you just wrote- are you sure that "your" confident that this is an adequate rebuttal? It looks like a bunch of whiny crap.

Now perhaps if you can get a proper media outlet to promote your hit piece then William might be interested in refuting it.

So now the medium determines the authenticity? (A medium that happens to be "in on it", right?)

Many errors don't necessitate contact with him at all.

In what world? This statement (although you try to be coy) is completely contradictory.

Mostly those I've pointed out so far require no contact whatsoever. Like the paragraph that you omitted in your lobby account, your "tnt-burn" comment, your misquotes and misrepresentations, etc. and more to follow.

You're right- because you debunked yourself. Amazing.

[MikeW]

This is pretty significant in its relationship to what happened in the lobby.
If you actually read those two paragraphs you'd notice other differences, for instance "As he was checking his yellow tie in a mirror" in gravy's paper becomes "He checked his yellow silk tie in a mirror and took a deep breath, preparing himself to take the elevator up" in the other. Do you seriously think Mark rewrote this for effect? Or could it be possible that these are different versions of the same story?

No need to guess, though. I searched for Ronnie Clifford at the paper and turned up this:

At around 8.45am, Ronnie walked into the lobby of the Marriott, which was connected to the lobby of the north tower by a revolving door. As he was checking his yellow tie in a mirror, he felt a massive explosion, followed several seconds later by a reverberation, a warping effect that he describes as the "harmonic tolerance of a building that's shaking like a tuning fork". He peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. It was filling with haze. People were scurrying to escape what had become a "hurricane of flying debris".

Then the revolving door turned with a suctioning sound followed by a hot burst of wind, and in came a mannequin of the future. A woman, naked, dazed, her arms outstretched. She was so badly burned that Ronnie had no idea what race she was or how old she might be. She clawed the air with fingernails turned porcelain-white. The zipper of what had once been a sweater had melted into her chest, as if it were the zipper to her own body. Her hair had been singed to a crisp steel wool. With her, in the gust of the door, came a pungent odour, the smell of kerosene or paraffin, Ronnie thought.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/he-thought-he-was-the-lucky-one-but-then-tragedy-struck-292468.html

The additional information may be useful, but it's not present in Mark's source: he's omitted nothing.

[16.5]

Good find, Mike.

Now Swing has to explain the significance of the differences in those two source materials.

I guess Swing's explanation will be that he was talking about only the parts of the lobby that were not on fire, not the parts that were!

[beachnut]

[quote]
1. Your not a journalist.
2. Your not a media representative.
3. Your not a government official.
4. Your a tour guide who wrote a ...

Errors; please no more errors. You are full of errors. Yes, you are. Or is that, is.

[Darat]

Note to all participants who have posted emails: Posting an email from someone without their permission is a breach of copyright, please confirm that the copyright holder (i.e. the person who wrote the email) has given permission for you to publish their email (the best and quickest way to achieve this is to ask them to send me an email to darat@randi.org confirming your permission). If I do not receive confirmation within 24 hours I will simply remove the emails and issue infractions.

[dbalsdon]

k. Since i can admit mine wasn't serious, i've just removed mine, i've just asked the mod to remove it.

[DavidJames]

Swing and Red, you believe the U.S. govt is complicit in the murder of 3000 people yet all you do is nit pick some insignificant points on Gravy's paper. None of which, if true, does anything to support their fantasy.

Why are you not marching in the streets?
Why aren't you pounding down the doors of the media?
Why aren't you petitioning your representatives?
Why aren't you demanding justice from the authorities?
Why haven't you secured legal services and pursue legal remedies?

Instead of trying to inflict grave wounds on the perpetrators, you are attempting to flick tiny specs of dust from a tour guide? Is it about "the truth", or justice? Or is really about scoring a couple of points on a skeptics forum?

[ref]

Those interested in the case of William Rodriguez, should read this article (linked on Mark's paper as well): http://911stories.googlepages.com/RodriguezSun.jpg

It's an earlier article on William. There are some interesting quotes, such as:

"Being a hero has opened a lot of doors"

"Mr. Rodriguez says he learned so much (as an assistant of Randi) that 'I could start my own church and perform my own miracles'"

"His (William's) small, immaculate office is packed with books like 'Talking the Winning Way' and 'Twenty-Five Steps to Power and Mastery Over People'"

"I had done TV before, so I knew how to manipulate the media"

[Gravy]

Why should he speak with you anyway?...
1. Your not a journalist.
2. Your not a media representative.
3. Your not a government official.
4. Your a tour guide...

First, Swing Dangler is misusing "your." "You're" is the contraction of "you are." Example: So you're telling me that black helicopters fly over your house every night?

Next, some history (all bolding is mine):
On April 29, 2007, Rodriguez agreed to Ron Wieck's invitation to appear with me on Hardfire. He posted (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2561670&postcount=17) his initial acceptance on this forum:Hi, thanks for the invitation. I will love to appear and since my actual agenda is full, I will find a date in the coming weeks to help you. I like Mr. Mark Roberts very much and agree with him in many aspects. It will be a humble honor to have a dialogue with him. what number my organizer should call you at?

William RodriguezWithin minutes of learning that Ron (pomeroo) had posted that invitation here as "Challenge to William Rodriguez," Rodriguez changed his mind and said he would not appear on the show. That made me wonder how much more there was to his story, which caused me to do the research that resulted in William Rodriguez, Escape Artist (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home).
On May 20, 2007 I sent this email to William Rodriguez. He was the first person I notified about my paper.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
On May 21 he replied briefly and requested that before I proceed further, I contact James Randi to get more background information on Rodriguez. He later reminded me of that request in a post on this forum (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2747460&postcount=21), as if that would somehow change the truth of his claims or how I approached them.In that email Rodriguez wrote, "Keep up the good work and I do support your position and quest to clear up points."
Later on May 21, Rodriguez emailed again and called my paper "an effectively good paper" and "well done." He said, "The only problem I have is when you get into the personal insults, personalising the issue , and the part at the end" [He quoted this section]:On May 5, Rodriguez wondered if I am gay, and wrote, "anybody have info on that? Not that it is relevant to our debate but it will explain a lot of things if true."

Mr. Rodriguez, what would it explain if I were gay?Rodriguez explained that he is not homophobic, that the quote was taken out of context, and that I should have included the part where he said this didn't matter in regards to the debate. He wasn't reading carefully: that disclaimer is right there in the passage he quoted, and the quote is not out of context or misleading.

That is the only specific thing he criticized, and he got it wrong.


Still later on May 21, Rodriguez forwarded a short email he had received, in which the sender said he had read my paper and castigated him with strong language for lying. Rodriguez said this was "my work" and cryptically wrote, "Wait for my action."
I replied, "William, my work is what I wrote and compiled. I welcome any specific response you may have to that."
He replied that he'd rather not get into a back-and-forth debate, but would instead argue his case in national media interviews.
I replied,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.
On June 4, Rodriguez emailed me with a link to a Nico Haupt post about him.
On August 10 and 12 I emailed him, asking for clarification about information about him that I had gathered in my John Schroeder research. He did not reply. When that paper was finished, he did say he was sending it to 65,000 people on his mailing list.
When participating in this forum, Rodriguez has repeatedly avoided answering tough questions.
In his signature on the Loose Change forum, Rodriguez includes a link to my paper about him.
In a post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2747349&postcount=18) where he said, "Thank you Gravy, and keep it coming," Rodriguez says he sent the link to my paper to the 9/11 families on his mailing list. About his behavior, he wrote, " You do not like it? get together a group of survivors and do your own show-presentation-demostration-exhibition-fair." He signed that post "William Rodriguez Escape Artist."
On this forum, Rodriguez addressed me as "My dear promoter (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2997405&postcount=48)."
In this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2746763#post2746763) post he wrote, "I have a show to do in couple of minutes," which he then changed to, "I have a presentation to do in couple of minutes." A telling slip, I think.
At 1:55 in this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-bPJjdqO5hg) made in Liverpool, Rodriguez says,"There was a guy in New York that was, writing an article, a hundred and three pages [sic] article, trying to debunk me. And instead of actually destroying me, what it actually did, it incremented the level of requests all over the world to give presentations. I was just, like, you know, he helped me immensely. So that's what we're doing now."
In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2732699&postcount=1) Rodriguez wrote, Thank you Mark for the tour, is going great!

William Rodriguez Escape artist
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
In this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2732732#post2732732) post he wrote,Oh no sweat, it did help indeed! It got me on the George Galloway Show, BBC 5 Live, The James Whales Show and on The Agenda. We added Italy,Penang, Kuala lumpur and we are arranging for a posible Ibiza and Belgium.

William Rodriguez Escape artist
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home


In the video linked above, which was shot in July, Rodriguez says that he wants all of this touring to be over by December, so that he can spend time with his family, and so that he can take the time to grieve. "My grieving process has been in front of the media this whole time." That's a curious statement, since Rodriguez consistently claims that he's ignored by the media.

I don't know what changed his mind, but last month Rodriguez announced that he was embarking on a new international tour, with my JREF forum nickname attached to it:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/gravytour.jpg
Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2673513#post2673513), his entire post was "I am 9/11."To summarize,

"It will be a humble honor to have a dialogue with him."
"Keep up the good work"
"An effectively good paper"
"Well done"
"The only problem I have"
"Helped me immensely"
"Thank you Gravy, and keep it coming."
"Thank you Mark for the tour, is going great!"
"It did help indeed."
"International 'Gravy' truth tour"
"I am 9/11."


Rodriguez hasn't tried to rebut my paper because he's quite happy with it. I wonder why his fans aren't.

[Brainache]

Just to be a total nit-picking jerk, I thought I'd point out this post and ask why none of our intrepid Truthseekers have picked up on it...:

Since Rodriguez has my email address, and has an account here, I await any corrections he may have, as I have since May.

Sorry to see this idiocy continuing. I won't be checking this thread again.

Ah HA!!! See, I've caught you in a blatant misrepresentation of the facts Mr So-Called Gravy!!!


<Does stupid dance of pointless victory>

[RedIbis]

Note to all participants who have posted emails: Posting an email from someone without their permission is a breach of copyright, please confirm that the copyright holder (i.e. the person who wrote the email) has given permission for you to publish their email (the best and quickest way to achieve this is to ask them to send me an email to darat@randi.org confirming your permission). If I do not receive confirmation within 24 hours I will simply remove the emails and issue infractions.

Thanks for your patience. I'm confident you'll receive the confirmation and the email will be verified.

[Norseman]

Huh? Of course they are. Let me offer some more evidence to support my contention that Mark is wrong.
1. If you will, examine this Power Point from the Greater New York Hospital Association here (http://www.gnyha.org/45/Default.aspx).
The relevant section from Asymmetric War (Terrorism)
and the Epidemiology of Blast Trauma Timothy E. Davis, MD, MPH,
Lt. Commander, USPHS Commissioned Corps Asst. Professor of Emergency Medicine Emory University
Catherine Y. Lee, MPH, Faculty Associate Center for Disaster Medicine
New York Medical CollegeService is...


Further in the slide we see...


Blast Injuries – Not in Isolation
“Total Body Disruption”
A Casualty with “Blast Lung” (1°) will also have
1. Penetrating glass shards (2°)
2. Traumatic amputation (3°)
3. Burns, inhalation injury, deafness (4°)
The Injury Severity Score (ISS) grossly undermeasures
– complexity & resource utilization
Other typical confined space (bus) injuries
- (1°) Blast lung, bowel rupture, TM rupture
- (2°) Penetrating foreign body to globe, chest, abdomen
- (3°) Traumatic amputations, Fx to face, pelvis, ribs, spine
- (4°) crush injuries, 1° & 2° burns

Again according to yet a 3rd source, you can be burned from a high order explosive without being blown apart. Mark's own source states that the unprotected human body can survive up to 30psi where building structures will collapse at 1-2 psi.

The issue with Gravy's statement is that he is trying to disprove the use of high order explosives with his statement and placing the cause of the event/s in the basement in the hands of the jet fuel by simply focusing on the human burn injuries. When in reality, a person suffering from a high order explosive attack can be expected to suffer burns! Imagine that.

I suspect he will ignore this point and keep the error in his paper.

This is quoted directly from the presentation you linked in your post above Swing Dangler:

Low-order explosives (LE) = deflagration
􀀁 Subsonic – explosion occurs < the speed of sound
􀀁 NO blast over-pressurization wave
􀀁 Not detonation
􀀁 LE does not mean “small” – 9-11 attacks involved LE
􀀁 LE injuries can be characterized as
a) shrapnel, b) blunt, c) crush, d) burn
􀀁 E.g., Napalm, gunpowder, Molotov cocktail,
many petroleum-based (but ANFO is HE)

Did you read this part of the presentation, especially the bullet point I have bolded Swing Dangler. Or maybe you just skipped straight ahead to high explosives. Your expert disagrees with you.

As already pointed out by pomeroo burns do no come alone in high explosives detonations. None of the burn victims suffered from primary blast injuries, not even a ruptured ear drum (TM), that rules out high explosives completely. Did you also notice that part you quoted only mentions 1st and 2nd degree burns, thats because high explosives only causes flash burns to uncovered parts of the skin(heat radiation if you are very close to the detonation). While the burn victims from WTC suffered very severe 3rd degree burns because the where caught inside the jet fuel fireballs that burns for a substantially longer time than an detonation.

[Gravy]

Just to be a total nit-picking jerk, I thought I'd point out this post and ask why none of our intrepid Truthseekers have picked up on it...:

Ah HA!!! See, I've caught you in a blatant misrepresentation of the facts Mr So-Called Gravy!!!

<Does stupid dance of pointless victory>Yup. I'm torn between feeling that I have a duty to read this thread because it's supposed to be about errors I've made, and greatly disliking the signal-to-noise ratio. I should probably have left it at "email me with your critiques," but that's obviously not going to stop the deliberately ignorant from posting nonsense here, or rational people from feeling that they should respond to the stupidity.

[Brainache]

Yup. I'm torn between feeling that I have a duty to read this thread because it's about my work, and greatly disliking the signal-to-noise ratio. I should probably have left it at "email me with your critiques," but that's obviously not going to stop the deliberately ignorant from posting nonsense here, or rational people from feeling that they should respond to the stupidity.

Well I just thought it was strange that none of the Truthers were giving you a hard time about it, given they seem to delight in such trivia.

I totally understand your position, but the temptation to be a nit-picking jerk is very hard for me to resist.

[tomwaits]

The "International Gravy Tour" is truly one of the most rediculous things I have ever seen. He has serious problems.

[pomeroo]

Note to all participants who have posted emails: Posting an email from someone without their permission is a breach of copyright, please confirm that the copyright holder (i.e. the person who wrote the email) has given permission for you to publish their email (the best and quickest way to achieve this is to ask them to send me an email to darat@randi.org confirming your permission). If I do not receive confirmation within 24 hours I will simply remove the emails and issue infractions.


Can it really be true that the writer of an e-mail is protected by copyright laws? How does an e-mail differ from a letter, which becomes the property of the recipient?

[Gravy]

The "International Gravy Tour" is truly one of the most rediculous things I have ever seen. He has serious problems.I don't expect he'll actually call the tour that, if and when it comes about. But who knows? He's not known for his sound judgment. I mention it because the ignoranti here want to know why Rodriguez should respond to my paper. Well, look at all the public attention he gives it, while never addressing its facts. It's a bit risky for him, but also clever. By mentioning my detailed investigation, he can pretend as though he's dealt with the specifics therein.

[Gravy]

Can it really be true that the writer of an e-mail is protected by copyright laws? How does an e-mail differ from a letter, which becomes the property of the recipient?Generally, you don't have the right to publish a letter in full without its author's permission. With email, it's assumed that you retain ownership of the file, as you would with a paper letter. For example, the email's author wouldn't have the right to demand that you destroy the email. However, the author's privacy is protected by right of first publication. That said, U.S. courts generally recognize the "fair use" defense when the value of the author's work isn't being affected economically by its publication. Whether something falls under the fair use provision or under the privacy laws seems a bit fuzzy, and of course the JREF forum admins determine what can and can't be published here. That's why I choose to paraphrase emails or to publish quote snippets. I did publish all of a paranoid wackomatic Jason Bermas email once, but that was probably wrong of me to do.

[Norseman]

The bolded part is the part Mark Roberts left out his paper.

Yet Ronnie remained untouched. It was as though the revolving door were a glass portal to another realm, a world of chaos and soot just inches away. The Marriott lobby was calm, the marble surfaces polished and antiseptic. For a few seconds, the two adjacent worlds did not meet.

The revolving door is just across the south side of elevators 6 and 7. He didn't see a fireball coming from eleveator 6 or 7 that could be 2 out of the 3 explanations for origins from the impact zone. The glass is still intact. But the glass on the westfront is broken. And the marble panels on the west-wall of the core removed.

This proves that the shafts of 6 and 7 weren't the origin of the damage in the lobby and 50 has already been ruled out for the basement damage.
Whats left? Of all lobby-accounts this is the most incriminating part for the official version.


There you just painted your self in to the corner Swing Dangler. The below quote is also on Gravy's site.
Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out."
Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11, 2001 Experiences of Port Authority Engineers at the World Trade Center
(http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0112-005.html-ssi)

Thats because the south side doors stood up to pressure inside the shafts, while the north side doors of 6 and 7 did not and released the jet fuel vapor into the confined space between the elevator banks where it deflagrated violently, shooting a fireball towards the concourse and another towards the west side entrance. Had this large fireball been caused by high explosives the 1st floor of WTC 1 would have been completely destroyed. You can be quiet sure that the south side doors of 6 and 7 also had been blown out and that Ronnie had been shredded by flying glass bits and the blast wave.

Let us not forget this part of Ronnie Clifford's story where she tells him what happened:
She had been standing outside the north tower next to a man she knew, waiting for a bus, when she heard a loud crash above. In an effort to protect them from falling debris, a security guard herded everyone inside the tower's lobby. Suddenly, she told Ronnie, something bright and hot enveloped her, a vapour maybe. She thought it could have dropped down the elevator shaft.

And this from New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E7DA163FF937A25753C1A9679C8B 63&n=Top/News/Health/Diseases,%20Conditions,%20and%20Health%20Topics/Burns):
To escape the falling debris, he turned around and was inside a revolving door when he noticed the lobby fill with a yellowish haze. He now suspects that may have been jet fuel exploding out of the elevator shaft. Then he heard a loud boom and saw a fireball coming toward him. The next thing he remembers is being thrown clear of the building and being on fire.

And this one also from New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EFDF1739F932A25750C0A9649C8B 63):
She walked through two sets of doors into the lobby of the north tower shortly before 9 a.m., and heard ''a whistle, the loudest sound you can possibly imagine,'' she said. She still does not know for sure what it was, but thinks it may have been the elevators plunging down their shafts. She had no idea that a jet had hit the building.

After the sound came the fireball, exploding from the elevators where jet fuel had cascaded down the shafts.

''The fire hit me and spun me around and half pushed me out the doors,'' she said. She pushed open the second set of doors, which were searing hot, and ran outside. She was aflame, in agony.

Aircraft impact -> falling elevators -> jet fuel fireballs. Or are you preferring to remain in your corner SD?

[Gravy]

Excellent posts, Norseman. I'll add those quotes to my paper.

[Gravy]

There you just painted your self in to the corner Swing Dangler. The below quote is also on Gravy's site.

Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11, 2001 Experiences of Port Authority Engineers at the World Trade Center
(http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/0112-005.html-ssi)

Thats because the south side doors stood up to pressure inside the shafts, while the north side doors of 6 and 7 did not and released the jet fuel vapor into the confined space between the elevator banks where it deflagrated violently, shooting a fireball towards the concourse and another towards the west side entrance. Had this large fireball been caused by high explosives the 1st floor of WTC 1 would have been completely destroyed. You can be quiet sure that the south side doors of 6 and 7 also had been blown out and that Ronnie had been shredded by flying glass bits and the blast wave.And in the south tower, an elevator mechanic reports:

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car. http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm (http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm)But Swing Dangler knows all this. He's just here in a pathetic bid for attention.

[JAMartell]

z10.invisionfree.com / Loose_Change_Forum / index.php?showtopic=20145&st=0#entry14727877

:D

[A W Smith]

z10.invisionfree.com / Loose_Change_Forum / index.php?showtopic=20145&st=0#entry14727877

:D


why not post your entire LC post here instead of a half assed broken link? do you fear it will be taken apart and you exposed as a fool? Go ahead. we are waiting.:popcorn1

[LashL]

But Swing Dangler knows all this. He's just here in a pathetic bid for attention.


True, but I am still waiting to see his apology to you for accusing you of deliberately removing a line from an article you cited when, in fact, the line did not ever exist in the article you cited.

I won't hold my breath, of course, and I am not at all surprised by his absence in the circumstances.

As an aside, I still find it difficult to fathom the breadth and depth of paranoia and conspiracy lunacy it requires for a person to take two separate articles, purport to have read them, and then tell a big fat porkie about someone else and accuse that someone else of deceit, based solely upon his own stupid conflation of the two articles into one, and his own stupid misconception.

I know, I know, twoofers do this all the time, and I shouldn't be surprised. But I still find such behaviour disturbing. *sigh*

[dbalsdon]

I know that it has nothing to do with controlled demolition, so you probably won't pay attention, but give it a shot.


So, while debunkers pretty much dismiss anything to do with CD(as it's already been debunked over and over), do truthers automatically dismiss anything that doesnt back up the CD 'theory'?

[JAMartell]

why not post your entire LC post here instead of a half assed broken link? do you fear it will be taken apart and you exposed as a fool? Go ahead. we are waiting.

ummm...no. More like I didn't feel like reformatting it for a bunch of guys who aren't going to debunk anything I wrote, but rather, just throw insults my way. Which is what you just did.

[LashL]

why not post your entire LC post here instead of a half assed broken link? do you fear it will be taken apart and you exposed as a fool? Go ahead. we are waiting.:popcorn1

New members cannot post links here until they get to 15 posts.

It's an anti-spamming mechanism put in place by the forum to prevent idiots from signing up and spamming their nonsense all over the place, at least until they're managed 15 posts. And a darned fine idea, by the way. Most tinhatters have very short attention spans, after all. :)

[LashL]

dupe

[LashL]

ummm...no. More like I didn't feel like reformatting it for a bunch of guys who aren't going to debunk anything I wrote, but rather, just throw insults my way. Which is what you just did.

Based on the foregoing, it would appear that this particular Loose Change forumite didn't even know that he couldn't post links and instead chose to be cryptic on purpose, so never mind. :rolleyes:

[JAMartell]

Well that's why I broke up the link, smarty pants!

[LashL]

Well that's why I broke up the link, smarty pants!

Make up your mind, little one.

And, in any event, if you have something to say, just say it.

Don't bother posting non-links. Just speak up.

"Use your words."

[A W Smith]

ummm...no. More like I didn't feel like reformatting it for a bunch of guys who aren't going to debunk anything I wrote, but rather, just throw insults my way. Which is what you just did.


So why bother to link to something that you believe no one here will read? are you that lazy that you cannot copy and paste your post over here with very minor editing?

[Gravy]

z10.invisionfree.com / Loose_Change_Forum / index.php?showtopic=20145&st=0#entry14727877

:DWelcome to the forums, Justin. Why don't you introduce yourself?

I just came from the SLC post "Slam-Dunking Justin Martell," which discusses your errors of omission and commission regarding this issue: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/12/slam-dunking-justin-martell.html

So, first you change my quote from this,
Well, it's also completely false. No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe.to this,
Well it's also completely false. No one lied about the air quality at Ground Zero.then you post nothing that refutes it. Is this your idea of truth?

My statement was in reply to this quote from a LCFC review:
“It was also good to see the coverage of the EPA’s lies to the rescue workers when they told them that the air was safe to breathe after the three WTC collapses. This is an issue often sidelined in other films. Loose Change Final Edition includes an interview with John Feal of the Feal Good Foundation (fealgoodfoundation.com) and many other citizens, victims of 9/11 who were betrayed by their government.”

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3125417&postcount=11I had posted in the SLC comments,
Justin, it's interesting that you posted that at the Loose Change forum, where I am not permitted to post. I guess you're afraid to address me directly when you're uninformed. Why not register at the JREF forum, where they don't ban people for expressing dissenting views?

Justin, please show where the EPA said the air at Ground Zero was safe for rescue or recovery workers to breathe, in contradiction to OSHA's requirement that PPE be worn inside the Ground Zero green line.

I await your reply.I'm glad you made it over here. Now produce your evidence or retract your claim. Clear enough, "scholar?"


ETA: You'll find lots of resources about Ground Zero air quality at my site, linked in my signature.

ETAA: I see that Avery piped in:

What. The. [rule 10].

You are despicable Mark.

Watch the end of the WTC chapter again. I know that it has nothing to do with controlled demolition, so you probably won't pay attention, but give it a shot.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=20145&view=findpost&p=14728547Sorry, Avery, I haven't seen your flick, and you know I can't post on your forum. Feel free to post your evidence here: you won't be banned for disagreeing!

[T.A.M.]

Yes Justin, so to prove you are right in your accusation you must simply...

Provide a link to, or quote from a document produced by the EPA, that states that,

"The air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."

No speculation, no "interpretation" of some comment they made, that you "feel" indicates the above. Please, we are all waiting.

TAM:)

[LashL]

Is "Justin" running interference for "SwingDangler" in order to deflect from SwingDangler's most recent faux pas (and, man, that was a BIG faux pas) or is it just a [insert scare quotes here] coincidence [end scare quotes] that "Justin" signed up now?

I am "just asking questions," of course.

;)

[Gravy]

Is "Justin" running interference for "SwingDangler" in order to deflect from SwingDangler's most recent faux pas (and, man, that was a BIG faux pas) or is it just a [insert scare quotes here] coincidence [end scare quotes] that "Justin" signed up now?

I am "just asking questions," of course.

;)Oh, who knows? I've long since lost my capacity for amazement at how dishonest the "truth" movement leaders are. I mean, if you want to make a good impression here, is it a good idea to start by falsifying quotes and still not being able to back up your claim? I'm open to arguments pro and con.

[LashL]

Oh, who knows? I've long since lost my capacity for amazement at how dishonest the "truth" movement leaders are.


Good point about the capacity for amazement. Nothing that 9/11 loons, deniers and idiots say surprises me any more.

However, it isn't just the twoofer "leaders" who are dishonest. Many of the "rank and file" are just as dishonest as those whom they choose to blindly follow. Not all of them, of course, as many of them are just caught up in the "twoof" and easily bamboozled.


But, enough of the derail. Better that "Justin" take his current allegations (whatever they might be) to another thread if he's so inclined, rather than sidetrack this thread.

Meanwhile, back on topic...

Swing Dangler... calling Swing Dangler. Come in, Swing Dangler. You've got some 'splainin' to do.

[JAMartell]

From Page 305 of EPA whistle blower Cate Jenkins' response to the paper released in August of 2003 entitled, "EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapses: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement:"

"EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman is quoted by Newsweek saying that the smoke plume at the World Trade Center disaster site is “not a health problem.” She says: “We have found particulate matter in the air, but other than being an irritant to those people who are out there breathing it deeply that’s why people are wearing protective gear and masks it is not a problem for the general population.”

The key phrase is "the smoke plume at the WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER SITE is “NOT A HEALTH PROBLEM." She then makes it sound as though the only reason people were wearing protective gear was because the dust was only an "irritant." Their readings showed that the dust was much more than an "irritant."

As far as the misquote is concerned, Mark please accept my apology for that. I wrote the article in my webpage editor and had the actual screen shot of what you said. When I moved it over to the LC forum it was late and I transcribed it incorrectly. The quote is now corrected and I acknowledge the mistake. However, I stand behind what I have written. The EPA made several very blanketed statements about the air quality in New York City as a whole, which includes Ground Zero, that said the air was safe to breath.

[Gravy]

But, enough of the derail. Better that "Justin" take his current allegations (whatever they might be) to another thread if he's so inclined, rather than sidetrack this thread.Well, this thread's about my factual errors, so if Justin has evidence of one, here's the place for it.

Swing Dangler... calling Swing Dangler. Come in, Swing Dangler. You've got some 'splainin' to do.Give him a break. As someone who's obviously never practiced the art, you have no appreciation for how time-consuming getting absolutely everything wrong is. Swing has to scrupulously examine every statement of his to be sure he didn't accidentally get something right. He doesn't just fling poo like some truthers do. That's easy. Swing is a poo artist.

[tomwaits]

LOL. Avery bans non-truthers on his forum for "less than honest debate" and then taunts them to respond! What a brave man!

[Gravy]

From Page 305 of EPA whistle blower Cate Jenkins' response to the paper released in August of 2003 entitled, "EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapses: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement:"

"EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman is quoted by Newsweek saying that the smoke plume at the World Trade Center disaster site is “not a health problem.” She says: “We have found particulate matter in the air, but other than being an irritant to those people who are out there breathing it deeply that’s why people are wearing protective gear and masks it is not a problem for the general population.” Bolding mine.

Office of Inspector General Evaluation Report No. 2003-P-00012

EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement, pp. 100-101

EPA Actions to Encourage Respirator Use

As demonstrated by a fact sheet prepared on September 11, 2001, EPA’s emergency response officials immediately recognized the need for and recommended the use of air purifying respirators at Ground Zero (a copy of this document is available on our OIG web site). EPA officials told us this fact sheet was provided to a FEMA official, but was not issued. We contacted a FEMA representative who told us that the flyer was not issued because it was decided that New York City should handle worker protection issues.

EPA also provided respirators for workers at the site. According to a May 1, 2002, letter from EPA’s Region 2 Administrator to Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), EPA had distributed 22,100 air purifying respirators and 30,500 sets of P100 particulate cartridges to New York City by September 22, 2001. Additionally, 600 respirators (MSA and 3m brand) and 2,000 cartridges (GME-P100) were provided to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Department of Health. The bulk of EPA-procured equipment was transported from EPA’s Edison facility by the New York National Guard to the New York City Office of Emergency Management for distribution to response workers.

As the rescue phase progressed, EPA emergency response officials told us they were concerned about the lack of respirator use at Ground Zero and outlined these concerns in a letter to NYCDOH dated October 5, 2001. This letter outlined the threat of potential exposure of workers to hazardous substances. The letter noted that EPA “... has recommended, and continues to recommend, that workers utilize personal protective equipment and the personal wash stations to prevent the spread of asbestos and other hazardous substances from the WTC to their homes, cars, public transportation, food service locations, etc.” The letter stated that EPA had observed very inconsistent compliance with its recommendations, but did not have the authority to enforce compliance with non-EPA/United States Coast Guard employees. The letter concluded by recommending that the Incident Commander adopt and enforce a site-wide Health and Safety Plan. A copy of the letter is in Appendix P.


Health Impacts of Lack of Respirator Use at Ground Zero
Two studies documented acute health effects suffered by emergency and construction workers at Ground Zero. A study of firefighters who responded to the collapse concluded that intense, short-term exposure to material generated during the collapse of the World Trade Center was associated with bronchial responsiveness and the development of cough. The study found that the following percentages of firefighters developed “World Trade Center cough” that was severe enough to require at least 4 weeks of medical leave:

• 8 percent of the firefighters with a high level of exposure to contaminants at the site (i.e., present at the WTC collapse).

• 3 percent of the firefighters with a moderate level of exposure to contaminants at the site (i.e., present within first 2 days after the collapse).

• 1 percent of the firefighters with a low level of exposure to contaminants at the site (i.e., present within 3-7 days of the collapse).

Initial findings of medical examinations of workers directly involved in rescue and recovery efforts also found evidence of acute health impacts. Preliminary results of these examinations released in January 2003 and reported in the Washington Post concluded that 78 percent of those sampled had suffered lung ailments and 88 percent had experienced ear, nose, and throat problems in the months immediately following the attack. Further, a September 2002 report25 by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine concluded that protection of workers at Ground Zero was “seriously inadequate.” The report noted that the response of workers in the first few hours and days after the attack without regard to their personal safety was laudable and understandable. However, according to the Mount Sinai report, a lack of enforcement of worker protection measures in the weeks and months that followed was not excusable.
Note that the EPA was not responsible for enforcement of its recommendations. For more information, see my site: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerositesafety%2Cworkerhealthissues

As far as the misquote is concerned, Mark please accept my apology for that. I wrote the article in my webpage editor and had the actual screen shot of what you said. When I moved it over to the LC forum it was late and I transcribed it incorrectly. The quote is now corrected and I acknowledge the mistake. However, I stand behind what I have written. The EPA made several very blanketed statements about the air quality in New York City as a whole, which includes Ground Zero, that said the air was safe to breath.Apology accepted. I expect you to do my alma mater proud, Justin. I once hit a softball home run from the grafted tree at the intersection of Mountain Road and the Rindge Hall drive, over the trees, and on top of Marcucella Hall. Won a case of beer from Tom Leahy, who said it could never be done. Don't make me dust off that clue bat for you!

[Brainster]

From Page 305 of EPA whistle blower Cate Jenkins' response to the paper released in August of 2003 entitled, "EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapses: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement:"

"EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman is quoted by Newsweek saying that the smoke plume at the World Trade Center disaster site is “not a health problem.” She says: “We have found particulate matter in the air, but other than being an irritant to those people who are out there breathing it deeply that’s why people are wearing protective gear and masks it is not a problem for the general population.”

The key phrase is "the smoke plume at the WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER SITE is “NOT A HEALTH PROBLEM."

FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION. And as James B told you in the comments at SLC, it's not on page 305 of that report (http://www.nycosh.org/environment_wtc/Jenkins-7-4-03-documentary-d.pdf), but on page 8 (page 20 of the PDF).

[beachnut]

debunked

[JAMartell]

Yes, but the EPA made blanketed statements about the air quality in New York City, which includes Ground Zero, which were not true at all. Many of the rescue workers listened to the EPA's statements...they are now sick. Do you think that the EPA was honest about the air quality in their statements?

I once hit a softball home run from the grafted tree at the intersection of Mountain Road and the Rindge Hall drive, over the trees, and on top of Marcucella Hall. Won a case of beer from Tom Leahy, who said it could never be done.

Impossible! haha! May I ask what kind of beer it was?

[Arus808]

Yes, but the EPA made blanketed statements about the air quality in New York City, which includes Ground Zero, which were not true at all. Many of the rescue workers listened to the EPA's statements...they are now sick. Do you think that the EPA was honest about the air quality in their statements?



Impossible! haha! May I ask what kind of beer it was?


yes some of the rescue workers are sick, but there isn't any study that has confirmed that they became sick because of the air quality around ground zero. in fact, the EPA stated that anyone working there should take any special regards to make themselves safe while working.


Can you provide a link to a study or finding that shows that the air quality at ground zero in the days following 9/11 are responsible for at least 1 of the rescue workers illnesses?

[Gravy]

Yes, but the EPA made blanketed statements about the air quality in New York City, which includes Ground Zero, which were not true at all. (bolding mine) False. Justin, even the EPA's critics – of which I am one – don't make that claim.

"White House meddled with 9-11 reports"

Early U.S. EPA statements made after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City reassuring the public that the air outside the “Ground Zero” area was “safe” to breathe were not substantiated by the data available at the time, according to a report by EPA’s Inspector General (IG), the agency’s watchdog arm. Instead, the White House Council on Environmental Quality convinced EPA “to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones” in its press releases, the report finds. In effect, EPA’s overriding message was that there was no significant threat to human health, even though the agency lacked monitoring data for several contaminants, particularly PCBs, particulate matter, dioxin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Because of the lack of supporting data—including health-based benchmarks for short-term and acute exposures to many of the contaminants of concern, research data on synergistic effects, and reliable information on the extent of the public’s exposure to these pollutants—the IG concludes that “the answer to whether the outdoor air around the World Trade Center was safe to breathe may not be settled for years to come.”

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2003/sep/science/kc_911air.html


Many of the rescue workers listened to the EPA's statements...they are now sick. Do you think that the EPA was honest about the air quality in their statements?Let's be sure we have this straight. My statement that you took issue with, strongly enough to start two threads about it, was, "No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."

That was in response to a comment in a Loose Change review that the rescue workers were told the air was safe to breathe.

Are you aware of any official body stating that the air at Ground Zero was safe for the rescue workers to breathe, in contradiction to the agencies that said it wasn't? I have read a lot about this issue, and I've never seen that claim made, except by 9/11 conspiracists.

Impossible! haha!They don't hand these out to any old chimp on a rock, you know.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/FPCAoY.jpg
(High school shirt, college photo)

May I ask what kind of beer it was?Beck's Dark, which was considered a quality beer then, or at least the best you could get at Foggs.

[tomwaits]

Good point about the capacity for amazement. Nothing that 9/11 loons, deniers and idiots say surprises me any more.

I think this might have to do with the fact that normal people realized soon after they watched LC that it was a bunch of BS. After a couple of years, the only people left to believe were the true crazies who believe EVERYTHING. That's why the truthers now are just paranoid nutjobs who put their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala". Those people have been out there forever...now they are the only ones left.

[Gravy]

I received an email from William Rodriguez today. Reprinted here because he sent it to thousands of people.

>Samandu, please send to all the Listserves, Jewish, Moslem and Christian email groups as well. Also send a copy to Mark Roberts.
>thanks
>WR.

Dear Families and Survivors: ...snip...

On another subject, I received the info of our old disrespectful attacker at it again. As you may remember Mark Roberts is the sad man who wrote the "hit piece" against me and sent offending emails to our sick friend John Shroedder. He now hits a new low level and "implies" that I should be taken care of by people from Canarsie as seen on this thread from the James Randi Foundation website forums:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3227861&postcount=217

All of you received already my comments to his previous comments and writtings. Just wanted to make you all aware of it ....snip... same instructions applies as before on dealing with this people. This is the same guy who implied that I was an anti-semite.


...snip....I replied:
William, your problems with the truth continue. You need to retract these statements, which are lies:

1) "sent offending emails to our sick friend John Shroedder."

That is a lie. I have sent no emails to John Schroeder, and have never said an offensive word about him. Since you asked that this lie be spread to many people, it is your obligation to correct your error.

2) "implies" that I should be taken care of by people from Canarsie.

That is a lie. I implied no such thing. I was jokingly responding to a joke about RedIbis's bizarre insistence that I come up with a different source for how far you were from the north tower when it fell, when even you haven't corrected me about that. So, William, exactly where were you trapped when the north tower fell? You can't possibly accuse me of lying if you refuse to answer.

Here's the exchange: Me (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3227811&postcount=215): "Okay, I see that I am unable to convince people not to engage with RedIbis over this nonsense. Hyperviolet, I have stated many times – including to Rodriguez – that if William Rodriguez wants to give me any other figure than "about 100 feet," I will gladly put that in my paper.

Hyperviolet, is this satisfactory to you, or is there something else you'd like me to do about this?"

UK_Dave (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3227857&postcount=216): "Personally, I'd like to see Rodriguez re-enact the events of that day...with a tape measure in hand. Can you arrange that?"

Me (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3227861&postcount=217): "I know some people in Canarsie who can arrange that, but they don't come cheap." How you get from "re-enact the events of that day...with a tape measure in hand" to "I should be taken care of," I have no idea. Correct your accusation.

3) "This is the same guy who implied that I was an anti-semite."

William, that as a lie, as I told you the last time you said this, when I reprinted EXACTLY what I wrote in my paper about you. Why do you continue making the same false claims? I don't want to suggest that William Rodriguez is anti-Semitic or a Holocaust denier. Comments like Bollyn's above, claiming that Rodriguez has inside information about Israeli Mossad involvement in 9/11, should be taken with a whole box of salt. I do submit that Rodriguez's desire to make extreme, unsubstantiated claims about the U.S. government will continue to put him in the company of other irrational extremists. Any positive message he has to offer will be tainted if he associates with such miserable, hate-filled characters. The invitation to speak in Iran, which recently held a government-sponsored conference to question the Holocaust, featuring a "roll call of the world's most infamous Holocaust deniers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6172807.stm)," should be a harsh wakeup call for Rodriguez. Link (http://911stories.googlepages.com/travelswithwillie) So that's three lies in one email, and still you haven't addressed a single point in my paper. I expect you to email "Samandu" with your retractions, and have them forwarded to anyone who received your initial email. Anything less is dishonest and dishonorable. You do care about honor, don't you, William?

I truly feel sorry for you. You seem to be sinking deeper and deeper into denial and dishonesty. You had the strength to take charge when the chips were down on 9/11. You need to get the help to gather the strength to take control of your life again, and become an honest, honorable person.

Call me an optimist, but I believe you can do it. Do you?

Sincerely,
MarkI had a brief look at the speakers' list (http://www.islamchannel.tv/forums/showForumReply.aspx?forumID=15617&name=Global+Peace+and+Unity+2007&catID=18&mode=) for the GPU conference on Sunday, November 25. Around 50 speakers and musical acts. It appears to be a broad spectrum of religious leaders, activists, entertainers, and politicians.

One name caught my eye because I had just read about him recently: the Saudi Sheikh Salman bin Fahd al-Odeh. He spoke a few minutes before Rodriguez. He was extremely controversial in 2004 and 2005 because of a fatwa he co-authored and was the first to publish, calling for jihad against the Americans in Iraq. Says the SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/17/EDG6QQ501C1.DTL&type=printable):
In November 2004, 26 Saudi clerics, 21 of whom are government officials, issued a fatwa calling on Muslims to join the jihad in Iraq. The leading figure behind the fatwa, Sheikh Salman bin Fahd Al-Odah, has heavily financed Saudi insurgents in Iraq and other locations.It's worth reading the MEMRI Institute's account of the many negative reactions (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP89605) to the fatwa by Iraqi leaders and other Muslim clerics.

The first email is being left in place as the opening sentence indicates that permission is being given to republish it.

ETA: William Rodriguez has stated that he has not given permission for his email to be published therefore I have removed the majority of it leaving a small amount that I believe is acceptable under the idea of "fair use".

[JAStewart]

Its a shame that you're a victim to his lies, but I'm impressed that you can keep a very relaxed, calm approach to correcting him.

Kudos.

[ref]

Mark, did you reply to the entire mailing list "Samandu" used, or only to William?

[RedIbis]

Gravy, did you receive permission to reprint the email?

[uk_dave]

Gravy, did you receive permission to reprint the email?

Yeah, I said he could. :rolleyes:

[dbalsdon]

Reprinted here because he sent it to thousands of people.

That's his reason for posting it. Did you ignore that bit.

[RedIbis]

Gravy is assuming it was sent to thousands of people. Even if true, the list could be private, and therefore, the message is not really public.

I don't really know the specifics of the jref policy on this, but after the last post by Darat, it sounds like a good idea to get permission before posting any email.

[Gravy]

Mark, did you reply to the entire mailing list "Samandu" used, or only to William?I only have Rodriguez's email address. It came from his account.

[Swing Dangler]

Mark Robert’s fallacious claim-“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”


Expert statement on the amount of explosives it would take:
Van Romero-The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,"The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. Romero said. Source: Repost from 2001, Albuquerque Journal Cached Here (http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html)

Gravy gets it wrong again. As we can see it would not take a "truly staggering amount of explosives despite the conditions Gravy would like to include in his statement.

Oh and before the cheerleaders pick up their pom poms, I'm very well aware that Van Romero doesn't believe explosives were used in the Towers after he recanted his position on the collapse. That doesn't change the fact about how much explosives it would take, and that amount is not "truly staggering' as Mark would like you to believe.



Gravy-Quote:
We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car. http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm
But Swing Dangler knows all this. He's just here in a pathetic bid for attention.

Oh Mark you are good at this.

Why would you post a description from the South Tower in an attempt to prove something that did not happen in the North Tower actually happened ?

Pretty deceptive, Mark, I must say. Surely you know that Ronnie's account was within inches of the North Tower lobby, but yet you post something from the South Tower to dispute that.

And it isn't about attention of course. It is about facts and truth or lack there of in your paper and the title of the thread.

Give him a break. As someone who's obviously never practiced the art, you have no appreciation for how time-consuming getting absolutely everything wrong is. Swing has to scrupulously examine every statement of his to be sure he didn't accidentally get something right. He doesn't just fling poo like some truthers do. That's easy. Swing is a poo artist

The errors I have listed in your paper are spot on. Your character attack in the face of those posted errors reveals quite a lot about your character and for that matter the paper itself.

Your reaction to those errors in the form of character attacks serve to only prove Kevin Ryan's descriptions of JREF debunkers correct. Not only that your avoidance of those mistakes only reaffirms your poor research or dishonesty or both.
Your violation of JREF rules of attacking the character have been noted and reported.


NorsemanI don't dispute those quotes. But what I believe in those accounts is a time frame difference between the first fireball and the subsequent explosion from something else. You can respond to the analysis that examines this phenomenon here (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745). I won't attempt to derail this by thread by posting all of the information.

[Swing Dangler]

Next error in Mark Robert’s paper.

Unsubstantiated Claim-

One thing to keep in mind is that firefighters searched all the floors that Rodriguez was on and many above. As they were trained to do after a terrorist attack, many of them were wary of the possibility of secondary explosive devices. No evidence of such devices was found on 9/11 or amongst the billions of pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by NYPD detectives and FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills landfill. No sign of explosives or incendiary use was reported by anyone, including the hundreds of ironworkers who became intimately familiar with the steel, nor can any such sign be discerned in any photograph of the ruins.

Mark:
1. Can you site where the NYPD detectives and the FBI Evidence Response Teams were actively searching for explosive devices or the effects they might have on the debris?

2. Can you source where anyone, including ironworkers were searching for the effects of explosive devices on the debris?

3. If you can’t cite the motivation for the search debris search efforts, why did you include this opinion dressed as facts in your paper?

[16.5]

Swing:

Van Romero?? You cannot be serious! He debunked himself six years ago. I cannot believe it, you have hit the bottom and have begun digging!

We remain waiting patiently for you to retract your lie about the sources Ronnie's account.

I also await your retraction that the WTC was subject to massive smoke and fires, but as I see you are digging yourself a deeper hole, I'll cut you some slack.

[Gravy]

Swing:

Van Romero?? You cannot be serious! He debunked himself six years ago. I cannot believe it, you have hit the bottom and have begun digging!

We remain waiting patiently for you to retract your lie about the sources Ronnie's account.

I also await your retraction that the WTC was subject to massive smoke and fires, but as I see you are digging yourself a deeper hole, I'll cut you some slack.You're either going to have to track his errors on a spreadsheet, or put him on ignore. I find the latter option to be highly satisfactory.

[chillzero]

Please take any further discussion of emails and copyright to the forum mgt section, and not in this thread.

Thankee!

[LastChild]

down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

This is something I will never understand. How the debunkers claim it would take a vast amount of explosives to bring down the buildings but a plane crash into a few floors (near the top no less) can accomplish it with no problem and three times with two planes. Apparently plane crashes and jet fuel are so efficient at taking down buildings that in addition to the two towers they demolished they also knocked down the building across the street completely. Didn’t even need jet fuel ignited fire for that one. Three buildings complete global collapse and not even one firecracker. So why the need for vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes?

[SDC]

With regard to the Van Romero comment per S.Dangler... Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

1/ You used him as your source of expert information.
2/ You then acknowledged that he had retracted his statements.
3/ Which means #1 is not valid. He corrected himself.

QED.

[16.5]

Dear Swing:

"Unsubstantiated Claim" does not equal error, Champ. One would have expected that in a thread about errors, perhaps you'd have been able to come up with some, you know, EVIDENCE to show that there was an error.

What is more, you don't even claim there is an error. So, you don't claim that

1. evidence of explosive devices was found on 9/11 or amongst the billions of pounds of debris at Fresh Kills landfill.
2. signs of explosives or incendiary use was reported by anyone,
3. signs of explosives or incendiary use can be discerned in any photograph of the ruins.

You are arguing rhetoric. Is that what the Truth Movement has become, wordsmiths?

/Can someone set up a spread sheet? Pretty soon Swing is going to be complaining about the Font.

[Gravy]

This is something I will never understand. How the debunkers claim it would take a vast amount of explosives to bring down the buildings but a plane crash into a few floors (near the top no less) can accomplish it with no problem and three times with two planes. Apparently plane crashes and jet fuel are so efficient at taking down buildings that in addition to the two towers they demolished they also knocked down the building across the street completely. Didn’t even need jet fuel ignited fire for that one. Three buildings complete global collapse and not even one firecracker. So why the need for vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes?LastChild, I believe you when you say you'll never understand how damage and fire can destroy buildings. Now, do you have a factual error of mine to point out or discuss? If not, then please take your troubles elsewhere.

[dbalsdon]

amount is not "truly staggering' as Mark would like you to believe.

Not just Mark. Pretty much all demolition experts aswell.

[The Almond]

This is something I will never understand. How the debunkers claim it would take a vast amount of explosives to bring down the buildings but a plane crash into a few floors (near the top no less) can accomplish it with no problem and three times with two planes. Apparently plane crashes and jet fuel are so efficient at taking down buildings that in addition to the two towers they demolished they also knocked down the building across the street completely. Didn’t even need jet fuel ignited fire for that one. Three buildings complete global collapse and not even one firecracker. So why the need for vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes?

Why is it that it would take a 500 kg weight dropped onto a man's head from a height of 1 meter to kill him, but 0.1 mg of exotoxin from botulism bacteria will do the same?

Your argument assumes that the modes of destruction of the airplane and the explosive charges are the same because the result is the same.

[Dave Rogers]

Next error in Mark Robert’s paper.

Unsubstantiated Claim-



Mark:
1. Can you site where the NYPD detectives and the FBI Evidence Response Teams were actively searching for explosive devices or the effects they might have on the debris?

The passage you have cited makes no such claim. "Actively searching" is your own contribution. The passage states that they were aware of the possibility of secondary explosive devices, which is a very different claim from "actively searching." Strike one.

2. Can you source where anyone, including ironworkers were searching for the effects of explosive devices on the debris?

Again, no such claim is made in the passage you've cited. Mark is very careful not to state that anyone was actively searching for explosives. Strike two.

3. If you can’t cite the motivation for the search debris search efforts, why did you include this opinion dressed as facts in your paper?

Complex question and non sequitur rolled into one. Strike three.

Dave

[dbalsdon]

Apparently plane crashes and jet fuel are so efficient at taking down buildings that in addition to the two towers they demolished they also knocked down the building across the street completely.

Plane crashes and jet fuel brought down WTC7???? I thought it was the collapse of one of the main towers that caused the damage to WTC7?


So why the need for vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes?

Isn't that the question truthers have been getting asked for quite a while now?

[R.Mackey]

This is something I will never understand. How the debunkers claim it would take a vast amount of explosives to bring down the buildings but a plane crash into a few floors (near the top no less) can accomplish it with no problem and three times with two planes. Apparently plane crashes and jet fuel are so efficient at taking down buildings that in addition to the two towers they demolished they also knocked down the building across the street completely. Didn’t even need jet fuel ignited fire for that one. Three buildings complete global collapse and not even one firecracker. So why the need for vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes?

Because you can't follow the argument.

The "debunkers," as you call them, who are actually people versed in legitimate science, actually say that it would take no explosives. Not a drop. We do not insist on "vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes" as you state. We know that the plane crashes could, and in fact were observed to, lead to the collapses all by themselves. You've constructed a strawman.

What you're getting confused by is our response to the Truth Movement claims that the jet impacts could not be enough. Several individuals on your side have claimed, without any basis in reality, that the structures were demolished systematically and on numerous floors -- some even stating the entire building, top to bottom -- by explosives. Our response is that, if we assume these claims are true, it will take an enormous amount of explosives, both in size and number. Others have claimed the gravitational energy in the structures was insufficient to cause the degree of destruction of both buildings and materials, and our response to that is that the amount of gravitational energy is so high that any plausible amount of explosives cannot make a significant difference.

These are called "reductio ad absurdum" arguments. They work by playing along with the ignorant claims of one's opposition, and showing how those claims lead to a contradiction, therefore those claims are false. Not understanding this, you've evidently conflated this approach with our actual interpretation of events. The mistake is yours.

There is no requirement for explosives in any of the structures that fell on 11 September 2001. On the contrary, the claims of the Truth Movement would require an unthinkable amount of explosives.

Clear?

[beachnut]

This is something I will never understand.
I agree, you will never understand 9/11. Now please point out the next error you have found.

BTW, it would not take much RDX to destroy a building, you and all of 9/11 truth have failed due the fact you think the WTC towers failing looked like CD! Darn, WTC7 took all day on fire to fail; but then most rational people expect buildings to fail if they are on fire and not fought.

Back to CD looking like a gravity collapse; see this is your problem. You are wrong to think the WTC looked like CD. The truth is CD looks like the WTC gravity collapse. CD uses gravity to do the work of destroying buildings, not explosives, gravity. Let me repeat, gravity is used to destroy the building in CD, not explosives. You 9/11 truth movement poor researchers are not good at any subjects on 9/11. Poor kids with not enough knowledge to understand 9/11. Got facts?

[LastChild]

Because you can't follow the argument.

I follow it fine thank you.

The "debunkers," as you call them, who are actually people versed in legitimate science,

Really? All of them? Who are we talking about that claims vast amounts of explosives would be needed to take down the towers?

actually say that it would take no explosives. Not a drop. We do not insist on "vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes" as you state.

Someone did. That’s what I was replying to. It’s never been said every floor would need to be wired by teams of demo experts that would take months?

We know that the plane crashes could, and in fact were observed to, lead to the collapses all by themselves. You've constructed a strawman.

Right back at you. Not all CT believers say the towers weren’t hit by something. I don’t know any who think something didn’t initially happen at the top of those towers. So how would follow-up explosive devices negate whatever happen in the Initial damage?

What you're getting confused by is our response to the Truth Movement claims that the jet impacts could not be enough.

I’m not confused thank you. I know when someone is talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Several individuals on your side have claimed,

I don’t belong to any club. Do you?

without any basis in reality, that the structures were demolished systematically and on numerous floors -- some even stating the entire building, top to bottom -- by explosives. Our response is that, if we assume these claims are true, it will take an enormous amount of explosives, both in size and number.

The only thing you assume is something that serves your argument. It makes no sense. If a plane can cause enough damage at the top of a building to produce a global collapse then there is no need for vast amounts of explosives wired on every floor if that’s what you claim. Make up your mind. Again these are your arguments not mine.

others have claimed the gravitational energy in the structures was insufficient to cause the degree of destruction of both buildings and materials, and our response to that is that the amount of gravitational energy is so high that any plausible amount of explosives cannot make a significant difference.

Then stop saying or endorsing garbage like this…

Mark Robert’s fallacious claim-“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

Did the plane need that? Would explosives negate gravity?

These are called "reductio ad absurdum" arguments. They work by playing along with the ignorant claims of one's opposition, and showing how those claims lead to a contradiction, therefore those claims are false. Not understanding this, you've evidently conflated this approach with our actual interpretation of events. The mistake is yours.

Yeah you know all about reductio ad absurdum don’t you?

There is no requirement for explosives in any of the structures that fell on 11 September 2001. On the contrary, the claims of the Truth Movement would require an unthinkable amount of explosives.

I’m not sure which claim you are referring to. Are you endorsing all debunker claims? Do they all concur?


Clear?

Never was unclear. How about you?

[Belz...]

I've got a $100 to the charity of your choice that says I didn't paraphrase. You can wager the same to a charity of my choice if Rodriguez posts here and substantiates the email.

I never play money games.

What I'm saying is that the two versions are incompatible. That means somebody modified at least one of them, and that makes the entire text suspect. It's unfortunate you don't see that.

This will be the last time I explain this. I cut and pasted out of the email from Rodriguez to me. There was a lot of unnecessary spacing. I cut it out, cut out an h and replaced it with a capital H by mistake.

Fair enough.

You guys are grasping at strawmen if you think this is a big deal or that it invalidates my initial claim.

You don't seem to know what a strawman is. Please look it up.

Totovader will not accept this simple challenge.

And yet you backed down of your own wager when called on it.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing:

Van Romero?? You cannot be serious! He debunked himself six years ago. I cannot believe it, you have hit the bottom and have begun digging!
We remain waiting patiently for you to retract your lie about the sources Ronnie's account.
I also await your retraction that the WTC was subject to massive smoke and fires, but as I see you are digging yourself a deeper hole, I'll cut you some slack.
I gave Mark the benefit of the doubt with regards to the source. It isn't my retraction to make.

SDC-With regard to the Van Romero comment per S.Dangler... Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
1/ You used him as your source of expert information.
2/ You then acknowledged that he had retracted his statements.
3/ Which means #1 is not valid. He corrected himself.

Can you source where Van Romero changed his mind about the amount of explosives it would take to bring the Tower's down not what caused the towers to come down?
Thanks for the link!

Quote:
Gravy-Quote:
We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car. http://archive.recordonline.com/aday...mber/jones.htm
But Swing Dangler knows all this. He's just here in a pathetic bid for attention.


Oh Mark you are good at this.
Why would you post a description from the South Tower in an attempt to prove something that did not happen in the North Tower actually happened ?

Dave Rogers-
This is real simple. Mark can either post what those at the debris sites were looking for or he can remove his opinion that is stated as fact to disprove the use of explosives in the basement or for that matter anywhere.
It is real easy to source what NIST was looking for in the debris pile as they flat out tell us in their report.

Lets see what the FBI and NYPD were looking for:
As they were trained to do after a terrorist attack, many of them were wary of the possibility of secondary explosive devices. No evidence of such devices was found on 9/11 or amongst the billions of pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by NYPD detectives and FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills landfill. No sign of explosives or incendiary use was reported by anyone, including the hundreds of ironworkers who became intimately familiar with the steel, nor can any such sign be discerned in any photograph of the ruins.
To support this comment with facts Mark should:
1. Cite which FBI agents attended the FBI's Explosives Unit-Bomb Data Center that were trained in recognizing debris from an explosive device and were
2. Actively searching for explosive device debris instead of personal belongings, survivors, etc.

What were the good Agents searching for at least told to the public:

According to Special Agent Richard Marx, who headed up the FBI's Evidence Response Team at Fresh Kills, said this about the Historical Society's proposal to document the effort: "We normally never let outsiders see a crime scene, let alone take photographs or touch anything. We were a tough sell. You became part of the team here. You have to remember we were here to find human remains. We were so focused we didn't realize we were part of history. Source: FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov03/nyhs112703.htm).
Notice something lacking? The part where the FBI was there to find evidence of explosive devices.
First motivation: Find human remains.
From the FBI Spokesperson:
Mrs. Chandler
I saw our employees and others working tirelessly, looking for the tiniest item that could be identified as belonging to someone that might help a family through its grief. Source: FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march04/chandler032104.htm)
Second Motivation: Find personal belongings.
From Michael E. Rolince, Acting Assistant Director in Charge, FBI
Process debris, identify victims remains, take photographs.Source: FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/rolince062403.htm)
Third Motivation-process debris and take photos, identify victims remains.

I don't recall reading anywhere in the above accounts of explosive devices being the subject of discovery. I don't recall reading where the BATF was examine the debris for evidence of explosives.

Had it been, not all of the steel was examined from the site anway.

Temporary Marine Transfer Stations

In conjunction with the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Department prepared permit applications for two transfer stations to be located at Pier 25 and Pier 6 in Manhattan. These sites were in close proximity to Ground Zero. These facilities provided an environmental benefit in reducing the amount of truck traffic that was leaving the site. By the end of October 2001, all material was removed through these sites.

Working in close cooperation with the Department of Design and Construction, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other governmental agencies, the Department made provisions that steel removed from Ground Zero could be transported directly to metal recyclers from either Pier 6 or Pier 25. This reduced the amount of material that would be screened at the Fresh Kills Landfill.Source:APWA Reporter Online (http://www.apwa.net/Publications/Reporter/ReporterOnline/index.asp?DISPLAY=ISSUE&ISSUE_DATE=032004&ARTICLE_NUMBER=770)
Makes you wonder why in a forensic examination why you would want to reduce the amount of material being screened.

That material at Fresh Kills was being screened of course by the FBI and NYPD but I don't recall reading about the BATF and Explosives being involved.

Lets examine the quote again, Dave.
As they were trained to do after a terrorist attack, many of them were wary of the possibility of secondary explosive devices. No evidence of such devices was found on 9/11 or amongst the billions of pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by NYPD detectives and FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills landfill. No sign of explosives or incendiary use was reported by anyone, including the hundreds of ironworkers who became intimately familiar with the steel, nor can any such sign be discerned in any photograph of the ruins.

My point, Mark suggests that FBI and NYPD were looking for evidence of explosives because they were trained to be wary of the possibility, yet has no facts to support that statement. This of course is used by Mark as 'evidence' that no explosive devices were used because no remains of such devices were found
What I posted from the FBI is what they were looking for. Not only that, some evidence that should have been searched was sent directly to the metal recyclers instead of Fresh Kills. And unless I'm mistaken, I haven't come across any forensic examination of the steel at the recyclers sites at Pier 6 or Pier 25.

Instead what we have is Mark's opinion in attempt to disprove explosive devices because nothing was found indicating such. However, there is no indication of that object (the remains of explosive devices or evidence of explosive devices) being the subject of the search by the NYPD or the FBI whereas human remains and possessions are the objects of the search.

Sorry Dave, the point stands.

[Belz...]

There's exactly one word, a single preposition, that has been changed. No other words were changed.

What's this, then:

(across of Century 21 store)
(across from the Century 21 store)

?

Those don't even sound the same.

[JAMartell]

Can you provide a link to a study or finding that shows that the air quality at ground zero in the days following 9/11 are responsible for at least 1 of the rescue workers illnesses?

Yes, I can...

Most 9/11 recovery workers suffered lung ills
70 percent of WTC responders developed symptoms, major study shows

Associated Press
updated 10:40 p.m. ET, Tues., Sept. 5, 2006

Putting aside whether or not anyone said that the air at GZ was safe to breath...are you really trying to say that the air quality is not responsible for the fact that these men are sick?

[JAMartell]

Let's be sure we have this straight. My statement that you took issue with, strongly enough to start two threads about it, was, "No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."

That was in response to a comment in a Loose Change review that the rescue workers were told the air was safe to breathe.

Are you aware of any official body stating that the air at Ground Zero was safe for the rescue workers to breathe, in contradiction to the agencies that said it wasn't? I have read a lot about this issue, and I've never seen that claim made, except by 9/11 conspiracists.

Why did they hold hearings? Why did the EPA's own Inspector General release a report saying that she did? Why is the DOJ arguing RIGHT NOW not to hold her accountable for her statements?

And then you talk about the air and water being "safe" press release, and say that the Press Release talked about giving protective gear for the responders...

But her PUBLIC STATEMENT was that the air was safe to breathe, and the water was safe to drink.

I wonder how many of the first responders down there were issued that Press Release so they could read about issuing protective gear.

They don't hand these out to any old chimp on a rock, you know.

(High school shirt, college photo)

That's seriously one of the best things I've ever seen!

May I ask what kind of beer it was?
Beck's Dark, which was considered a quality beer then, or at least the best you could get at Foggs.

Well that's better than anything you can get there now!

[Belz...]

The only thing you assume is something that serves your argument. It makes no sense. If a plane can cause enough damage at the top of a building to produce a global collapse then there is no need for vast amounts of explosives wired on every floor if that’s what you claim. Make up your mind. Again these are your arguments not mine.

Actually, most of the twoofers seem to be, indeed, claiming that all those floors, from the impact zone to the ground, were demolished. If you ask me, only one floor would need to be blown with explosives, but this is all due to the truthers' misunderstanding of how powerful gravity can be in these cases:

1) They don't think 30+ floors can smash through 70+.
2) So, Just one 767 isn't enough, and so isn't a one-floor demo
3) Ergo, demolition charges must have been placed on several floors.

It's all logical, until you:

a) Consider the evidence
b) Realise that 1) is false.

[T.A.M.]

Justin:

Where exactly is the CONSPIRACY THEORY in the above posts/accusations? Are you insinuating that the govt or agencies there of PURPOSELY told first responders the air was safe to breath, with knowledge that it wasn't, and if so, what do you speculate their motive was, and finally, where is your proof that they conspired to do this?

NOTE:
So you do not go off on some wild truther tangent, and declare my stance on such matters without me making comment, let me just say for the record that by asking the above questions of you, I am in NO WAY indicating what side of the debate on air quality of GZ I am on...they are merely QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

Thanks

TAM:)

[apathoid]

Why did they hold hearings? Why did the EPA's own Inspector General release a report saying that she did? Why is the DOJ arguing RIGHT NOW not to hold her accountable for her statements?


Hi JAMartell, welcome to JREF. I was wondering if you could provide some evidence for these two claims claim...apologies if you already have. Thanks


And then you talk about the air and water being "safe" press release, and say that the Press Release talked about giving protective gear for the responders...

But her PUBLIC STATEMENT was that the air was safe to breathe, and the water was safe to drink.



For the general population. Her statement was qualified. Do you need the whole text printed out in full....again?

The EPA recommended Personal Protective Equipment on the GZ pile. Obviously, this means the air was not safe to breathe.


I wonder how many of the first responders down there were issued that Press Release so they could read about issuing protective gear.



They should have been made aware of the PPE recommendation(requirement??) by the site foremen. It's not the EPA's job to see that it's recommendations are followed. I work in an area where I can potentially be exposed to some really nasty stuff and it's no ones job but mine to make sure I'm wearing the proper protective gear where/when required to do so(though OSHA does inspect periodically)

[apathoid]

Justin:

Where exactly is the CONSPIRACY THEORY in the above posts/accusations?



Not only that, but how is this discussion even tangentally related to the inside job conspiracy?

I guess these guys either love trying to pwn Mark over the most minute detail(see SwingDanglers posts in this thread:rolleyes:), or they just aren't satisfied with accusing the government of mass murder, they also want to be able to claim they are incompetent or liars(or both) who are indirectly killing the GZ rescue workers....or both.

[T.A.M.]

Not only that, but how is this discussion even tangentally related to the inside job conspiracy?

I guess these guys either love trying to pwn Mark over the most minute detail(see SwingDanglers posts in this thread:rolleyes:), or they just aren't satisfied with accusing the government of mass murder, they also want to be able to claim they are incompetent or liars(or both) who are indirectly killing the GZ rescue workers....or both.

My opinion, it is the latest devolution in the truth movement. Now upset and dissatisfied with the stagnation of their movement, the minions of the truth have decided to align themselves, without consent, with the 1st responders and their health problems. They are trying to blur the lines between the 9/11 attacks, and who carried them out, and the GZ air quality, and those who may have suffered from it. In so doing, they are likely hoping to (A) divert attention from their failing points, and (B) suck in a whole new group of followers, by labeling those who do not see things their way on 9/11, as somehow also defending the powers that be on the issue of GZ air quality.

It is actually an act of desperation, and a juvenile one at that...I expect no less from them.

TAM:)

[sleahead]

And then you talk about the air and water being "safe" press release, and say that the Press Release talked about giving protective gear for the responders...



I wonder how many of the first responders down there were issued that Press Release so they could read about issuing protective gear.

An OSHA employee instructs a New York Police Department officer in the use of respiratory protection at the site. During the first two months of the recovery effort, OSHA distributed about 110,000 respirators, conducted quantitative fit-testing, and instructed wearers in how to use respirators.

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701765/session3.html

[JAMartell]

Where exactly is the CONSPIRACY THEORY in the above posts/accusations? Are you insinuating that the govt or agencies there of PURPOSELY told first responders the air was safe to breath, with knowledge that it wasn't, and if so, what do you speculate their motive was, and finally, where is your proof that they conspired to do this?

TAM,

I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy, I'm saying that the EPA caved in to pressure from the White House and released blanketed statements that 1. Contradicted their data and 2. Were not true. The 2003 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the EPA even admitted that the EPA lacked the information needed to determine the air quality surrounding Ground Zero in the days following the September 11 attacks. Perhaps if the EPA had been forthcoming about the air quality, the Rescue Workers would have been more inclined to wear their protective gear. Instead, the workers saw these statements from the EPA which did suggest that those working at the site should wear gear, but also essesentially said that the air in lower Manhattan, which included Ground Zero, was safe.

[Gravy]

Justin, you've made a bad start here, and now you're trying to move the goalposts. That won't work here. Present your evidence NOW that officials told workers at Ground Zero that the air there was safe to breathe, or retract your claim here and at Loose Change.

You're a man, not a boy, and you raised this issue. It is rude of you to have to be asked repeatedly to back up your own claims. This isn't about what you want to be true. It's about what the evidence says. When the honorable person jumps to conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence, he says, "Oops, looks like I jumped the gun on that one. I apologize." That's part of the maturing and learning process. It needn't be painful.

A scholar and truth movement leader should not have to be lectured about these basic principles of evidence and inquiry.

Is there anything unfair about my request?

[LastChild]

If you ask me, only one floor would need to be blown with explosives, but this is all due to the truthers' misunderstanding of how powerful gravity can be in these cases

So then you disagree with this...

“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

And you agree how explosives can use gravity the same way the plane crash did? In fact that's what they do in demolition no? Make up your debunker minds.

[Dave Rogers]

My point, Mark suggests that FBI and NYPD were looking for evidence of explosives because they were trained to be wary of the possibility, yet has no facts to support that statement.

That is at best your interpretation rather than a factual error. Mark states that the debris was repeatedly searched and that no evidence of explosives was found. Nowhere does he state that exposives were a primary target of that search, however he draws the inference that such evidence might have been found in a detailed search as was in fact carried out.

This of course is used by Mark as 'evidence' that no explosive devices were used because no remains of such devices were found.

That is, in fact, evidence rather than proof that there were no explosive devices present. It's not conclusive proof taken on its own, but it's worth considering as evidence.

Sorry Dave, the point stands.

You've identified a paragraph with three assertions:
The debris was searched;
The searchers at ground zero may have been expected to be aware of the possibility of explosive devices;
No evidence of explosive devices was found.

The fact that you've decided to add a further assertion that explosives were explicitly searched for, then pointed out that your own assertion is untrue, doesn't have any relevance to anything Mark wrote, and you're not likely to convince anyone but RedIbis and Zlaya that it does.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

TAM,

I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy, I'm saying that the EPA caved in to pressure from the White House and released blanketed statements that 1. Contradicted their data and 2. Were not true. The 2003 report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the EPA even admitted that the EPA lacked the information needed to determine the air quality surrounding Ground Zero in the days following the September 11 attacks. Perhaps if the EPA had been forthcoming about the air quality, the Rescue Workers would have been more inclined to wear their protective gear. Instead, the workers saw these statements from the EPA which did suggest that those working at the site should wear gear, but also essesentially said that the air in lower Manhattan, which included Ground Zero, was safe.

Well then, I suggest you move your discussion out of the CONSPIRACY THEORIES SUBFORUM, and to a more appropriate section of the JREF Forums. That was my point.

Thanks

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Justin, another thing: I notice that on the Loose Change (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=20145&st=0#entry14727877) forum you changed my quote back to its original form, but you didn't make note of that in the thread. Since others quoted your altered version, you need to make that correction. Thank you.

Oh, and in your first post there you wrote: "The forum's users are posting in the thread claiming that no one can name one thing Roberts has gotten wrong. I'd like to start with an easy one:"

Can you point out where anyone here claimed that no one can name one thing I've gotten wrong, or are you mistaken about that? I'm sure you'll also note that I pointed out some of my own mistakes on the first page of this thread.

[apathoid]

So then you disagree with this...



And you agree how explosives can use gravity the same way the plane crash did? In fact that's what they do in demolition no? Make up your debunker minds.


RMackey laid it out in plain English and it apparently went right over your head. You just do not get it.

It's your(as in the Truth movement) contention that enough explosives were needed to pulvervise 99.9% of the concrete, vaporize steel, cut the steel in 30 ft sections, eject debris upwards and outwards, etc..etc..etc..etc. We are simply responding to that as if it were true just to show you how ridiculous the amount of explosives needed is. You see, you are trying some bizarre from of equivocation in which you faulting us for going along with your claims just for the sake of argument.

Further, debunkers here and elsewhere have repeatedly informed Truthers that they are just plain wrong and that gravity was enough to cause what was observed - and even provided to the necessary calculations to the effect. No explosives were needed, much less enough explosives "powerdize the 99.9% of the concrete".

Now, why does it take so much explosives for a standard demoliton when just enough for one or two floors would do? Because if they wired up just a single floor at the top of the building, you'd destroy all of the surrounding buildings(a la 9/11) as well as the one you've just demoed. It seems counter-intuitive that more explosives means less collateral damage to adjacent buildings - but that is the case.

[LastChild]

RMackey laid it out in plain English and it apparently went right over your head. You just do not get it.

It's your(as in the Truth movement) contention that enough explosives were needed to pulvervise 99.9% of the concrete, vaporize steel, cut the steel in 30 ft sections, eject debris upwards and outwards, etc..etc..etc..etc. We are simply responding to that as if it were true just to show you how ridiculous the amount of explosives needed is. You see, you are trying some bizarre from of equivocation in which you faulting us for going along with your claims just for the sake of argument.

Is that what was being said here? Watch out somethings not going over your head genius.


“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

Do you agree with that?

Further, debunkers here and elsewhere have repeatedly informed Truthers that they are just plain wrong and that gravity was enough to cause what was observed - and even provided to the necessary calculations to the effect. No explosives were needed, much less enough explosives "powerdize the 99.9% of the concrete".

Again is that what is being said here...?


“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

Now, why does it take so much explosives for a standard demoliton when just enough for one or two floors would do? Because if they wired up just a single floor at the top of the building, you'd destroy all of the surrounding buildings(a la 9/11) as well as the one you've just demoed. It seems counter-intuitive that more explosives means less collateral damage to adjacent buildings - but that is the case.

Really? Are you sure just wiring the top floor would destroy an entire building as well as the surrounding ones? Now you're just making crap up.

Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree. Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?

[Minadin]

I think you're forgetting about the control part of controlled demolitions, LC. There's any number of ways to cause a building to collapse in an uncontrolled fashion.

I agree with what Apathoid and R. Mackey are telling you above.

[16.5]

"Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree."

First, you intentionally misquoted him. He did not say "the top floor" champ. He said a floor at the top of the building, "(a la 9/11)." Moreover, both comments are fully consistent, but you seem a little too busy trying to get your wisecracks in to care about it.

"Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?"

Sure, just tell us when you guys have settled on the Truth. I'm guessing it is going to be space beams, with a side helping of fake video, and a little mind control for afters? Right, Child?

[apathoid]

“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

Care to provide some sort of context for that quote? Also, it could be argued that the amount of explosives needed to sever every single column on a single floor of the WTC is indeed "staggering".

For a standard CD industry style demolition that doesn't damage or destroy nearly every building in the vicinity, yes I'd be inclined to agree that ridiculous amounts of explosives are required. However, if you used explosives to sever every column, say on the 82 floor, my guess is you'd have a building collapse looking something like what happened on 9/11 - but then again, I'm no structural engineer.

Really? Are you sure just wiring the top floor would destroy an entire building as well as the surrounding ones? Now you're just making crap up.

Like I said, I'm no engineer, but after reading Greening and Bazant on the progressive collapse/momentum transfer, it would seem quite likely that the lower portion of the building would behave the same way as it did when the upper portions crushed the lower portions, one floor at a time, just like on 9/11. The mechanism is similar, but obviously not identical. Also, as 16.5 said, I did not say the top floor.

Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree. Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?

There is no disagreement as I am not making a claim. Try reading and understanding what's being written.

Is that what was being said here? Watch out somethings not going over your head genius.



Obviously, I was talking about truther claims in general with regard to explosives, not any one specific claim. You see, there as many different claims as there are truthers who spout them..

[ref]

I only have Rodriguez's email address. It came from his account.

Ok. I was hoping the entire list could also see the response to Willie. Not just his version of events. Well, the way he promotes your paper, some are bound to read the paper anyway :)

[GStan]

CT: There were lots of big bombs.
NWO: There is no evidence of that.
CT: But look how the buildings fell.
NWO: That can happen without any bombs.
CT: AHA!!! Take that debunkers! :flamed:

[SDC]

Considering S.Dangler's ever longer and more convoluted posts, I decided to cheat: I said and he quoted me:
Quote:
SDC-With regard to the Van Romero comment per S.Dangler... Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
1/ You used him as your source of expert information.
2/ You then acknowledged that he had retracted his statements.
3/ Which means #1 is not valid. He corrected himself.

Then he said:

Can you source where Van Romero changed his mind about the amount of explosives it would take to bring the Tower's down not what caused the towers to come down?
Thanks for the link!

End of snappy counterpoint.

Since Romero changed his mind about how the towers came down, the second point -- about amount of explosives used -- is, simply, moot. There is nothing to source.

[beachnut]

Is that what was being said here? Watch out somethings not going over your head genius.

Do you agree with that?

Again is that what is being said here...?

Really? Are you sure just wiring the top floor would destroy an entire building as well as the surrounding ones? Now you're just making crap up.

Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree. Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?
not a single fact, just junk - what error were you talking about?

[pomeroo]

I follow it fine thank you.



Really? All of them? Who are we talking about that claims vast amounts of explosives would be needed to take down the towers?



Someone did. That’s what I was replying to. It’s never been said every floor would need to be wired by teams of demo experts that would take months?



Right back at you. Not all CT believers say the towers weren’t hit by something. I don’t know any who think something didn’t initially happen at the top of those towers. So how would follow-up explosive devices negate whatever happen in the Initial damage?



I’m not confused thank you. I know when someone is talking out of both sides of their mouth.



I don’t belong to any club. Do you?



The only thing you assume is something that serves your argument. It makes no sense. If a plane can cause enough damage at the top of a building to produce a global collapse then there is no need for vast amounts of explosives wired on every floor if that’s what you claim. Make up your mind. Again these are your arguments not mine.



Then stop saying or endorsing garbage like this…



Did the plane need that? Would explosives negate gravity?



Yeah you know all about reductio ad absurdum don’t you?



I’m not sure which claim you are referring to. Are you endorsing all debunker claims? Do they all concur?



Never was unclear. How about you?



You are astonishingly obtuse, even by fantasist standards.

[Gravy]

Are those crickets or katydids?

Well, I'm sure Justin is busy with school. I also emailed Avery this afternoon:

Hi, Dylan.

Justin Martell pointed out this LC thread (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=20145&st=0#entry14727877), which begins with a quote of mine about no one telling Ground Zero workers that the air there was safe to breathe. For some reason you found that to be a despicable comment.

I take it then that you can produce evidence that officials did tell Ground Zero workers that the air was safe to breathe there? Justin hasn't been able to do so, and I haven't come across it in my extensive readings on this subject. I'd appreciate this information so I can retract my statement and add the info to my site. If you don't have such evidence, your retraction is expected, but I don't need to tell you that.

Sincerely,
Mark

P.s.: my quote in your post is incorrect. Justin had altered it and has apologized for doing so. He changed the quote back to its original form in the first ost in that thread.

Oh, and will you tell those kids on your site that the U.S. military isn't a branch of government, for crying out loud?


I heard back from William Rodriguez. He said he corrected his email to indicate that my John Schroeder paper was an "open letter" and not email. He said he was leaving the word offensive in, although he didn't say what offended him. He also said he was not going to correct his other lies.

I wrote a lengthy reply to him, which you can read here (http://911stories.googlepages.com/emailsfrommetowilliamrodriguez). I'll post the rest of my emails to him on that page when I get a chance, to show that I'm dealing with him honestly and openly.

[qarnos]

Justin Martell pointed out this LC thread, which begins with a quote of mine about no one telling Ground Zero workers that the air there was safe to breathe. For some reason you found that to be a despicable comment.

What's truly despicable is the way the truthers use the first responders as a shield against criticisms of their conspiracy fantasy.

[LastChild]

"Maybe you should take all this up with Gravy. You two seem to disagree."

First, you intentionally misquoted him. He did not say "the top floor" champ. He said a floor at the top of the building, "(a la 9/11)." Moreover, both comments are fully consistent, but you seem a little too busy trying to get your wisecracks in to care about it.

Oh my bad. BTW was the WTC the top floor? I mean that is what we are talking about here right Champ?

"Try to get all your debunker garbage straight will you guys?"

Sure, just tell us when you guys have settled on the Truth. I'm guessing it is going to be space beams, with a side helping of fake video, and a little mind control for afters? Right, Child?

Really I thought you believed in a plane crash into a few floors can do it but the only way explosives could do it is if every floor was wired.

Or that the only way to successfully conspire to take down the WTC would be if thousands of people were involved. But of course according to you 19 hijacker can conspire all on their own and successfully or was it all of Al Queda? How did all of Al Queda keep it quiet? Which is it anyway? God it’s hard to get your story straight champ.

Where’s that WTC report? What’s taking so long? Didn't Bazant have his report out in two days? Was Bazant’s all wrong?

Fill me in will ya? Champ? You know the REAL truth don’t ya?

Champ?

[JamesB]

Or that the only way to successfully conspire to take down the WTC would be if thousands of people were involved. But of course according to you 19 hijacker can conspire all on their own and successfully or was it all of Al Queda? How did all of Al Queda keep it quiet? Which is it anyway? God it’s hard to get your story straight champ.




They didn't they have talked about it on numerous occassions, Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al Shib, Zacarias Moussaouii and Salim Ahmed Hamdan have all said that Al Qaeda was involved in one way or another.

As opposed to absolutely zero insider who have said that the US was behind it.

Not to mention all the other evidence, such as the presence of Arabs on the flights, credit card bills, training at flight schools etc.

[dbalsdon]

Really I thought you believed in a plane crash into a few floors can do it but the only way explosives could do it is if every floor was wired.

Even to replicate the initial damage the plane's did, it would require a lot of explosives.

[dbalsdon]

And even then, the buildings might've still stood. After all, it was the plane damage AND the fires which brought the building's down, not just one on its own.

[Crungy]

RMackey laid it out in plain English and it apparently went right over your head. You just do not get it.


It's not too difficult to fly over a four year olds noggin'.

It's amazing how how well written and crystal clear RMackey's post was and how the lil' kid replied to each point with a complete lack of understanding of what Mr. Mackey was trying to teach him. It's like watching a 4 year old stick his tounge out at you. Oh well. If the lil' kid advances to first grade next year, maybe he'll learn some basic critical thinking skills.

[AZCat]

Where’s that WTC report? What’s taking so long? Didn't Bazant have his report out in two days? Was Bazant’s all wrong?

Perhaps a moment's reflection will bring you the realization that scope is significant when determining the difference in duration.

[stateofgrace]

God it’s hard to get your story straight champ.


Isn't that just LC and your story is what exactly, champ? Opps forgot you are just asking questions aren’t you champ? You have no story.

You know champ the questions that you will never answer but imply that your fellow countrymen planned, committed and covered up mass murder, champ?

Got any proof champ? No maybe not, better sing the twoofer line, better buy into it hook line and sinker hey, champ? Better to demonise your fellow countrymen than accept facts hey champ? Better to try desperately to defend cold bloodied mass murderers than even venture a definitive statement hey champ?

[Gravy]

LastChild, unless you have evidence that refutes a factual statement of mine, kindly take your juvenile nonsense elsewhere.

[LastChild]

LastChild, unless you have evidence that refutes a factual statement of mine, kindly take your juvenile nonsense elsewhere.

You don't believe or have been spewing any of that crap I'm refuting?

[pomeroo]

You don't believe or have been spewing any of that crap I'm refuting?

Just out of curiosity, how does it serve your evil cause to respond to someone who is vastly more knowledgeable and far more more intelligent than you with a mindless, reflexive incoherency?

[LastChild]

Just out of curiosity, how does it serve your evil cause to respond to someone who is vastly more knowledgeable and far more more intelligent than you with a mindless, reflexive incoherency?

By getting him or you or any other debunker to respond to me the stupidity behind your claim to know the truth is revealed. You have nothing. You all keep claiming to put me on ignore but you always come back for more. Why is that? I mean if I'm just mindless and incoherent then what do I matter?

Do you have doubts about what you claim to be the truth pomeroo? Isn't that why I bother you or are you afraid I might sway someone with my mindless incoherency?

What is it?

[pomeroo]

By getting him or you or any other debunker to respond to me the stupidity behind your claim to know the truth is revealed. You have nothing. You all keep claiming to put me on ignore but you always come back for more. Why is that? I mean if I'm just mindless and incoherent then what do I matter?

Do you have doubts about what you claim to be the truth pomeroo? Isn't that why I bother you or are you afraid I might sway someone with my mindless incoherency?

What is it?


Evil fascinates me. Like Dante, I believe it is bound up with stupidity (in the Inferno, Satan appears as a grunting brute immured in ice) and irrationality. Of course it is impossible for you to sway anybody. You are unintelligent and uninformed by twoofer standards, the lowest standards imaginable. I don't put anybody on "ignore" because I don't think that such an option should be available on a public forum: should two like-minded posters be permitted to ignore everyone else and talk exclusively to each other?

There can be no doubts about the absurdity of your imaginary conspiracy. I have shown, using simple math, why your fantasy is wildly implausible. You are incapable of grasping the demonstration, but, again, you are obtuse. A mountain of evidence exists showing who perpetrated the atrocity and how the buildings fell. Your hatred of America is insufficient to stand reality on its head.

[Zlaya]

sorry to derail the thread but why do you place blame for this on the debunkers? arent the folks peddling the speculations just as (if not more so) guilty of "diverting attention?"

No not really. The 'trooooooooooofers' bring up questions, to a government that has shown a history of false flag terrorism, regarding the biggest terror event of 21st century.

You debunkers, on the other hand, divert attention, and look like fools in the process.

[T.A.M.]

So are you telling us you think evil is "Divine Comedy"??

TAM;)

[16.5]

LChild:

"Really I thought you believed in a plane crash into a few floors can do it but the only way explosives could do it is if every floor was wired.

Or that the only way to successfully conspire to take down the WTC would be if thousands of people were involved."

There you go! You are finally getting it there! You are correct, IF it were Controlled Demolition, the floors would have to be wired, and the ONLY way to do a Controlled Demolition would be to employ many, many people to conspire to do the work. That is why Controlled Demolition is nonsense, but it is not the ONLY reason, but I really feel you have had a breakthrough here. You've debunked CD! Great job.

Now, of course, you are a little lost on how Al Queda and NIST work, but baby steps, Champ!

[JAMartell]

Justin, another thing: I notice that on the Loose Change forum you changed my quote back to its original form, but you didn't make note of that in the thread. Since others quoted your altered version, you need to make that correction. Thank you.

Done.

Well, I'm sure Justin is busy with school.

I am. Finals are about to begin. However, when break starts this week I would like to discuss this topic more in depth. You can hold me to that. Also Mark, I'd soon like to discuss the recent email conversation you and I had recently in which you, instead of answering my question, decided to spin it around on me and turn it into something I did not say at all.

Oh, and in your first post there you wrote: "The forum's users are posting in the thread claiming that no one can name one thing Roberts has gotten wrong. I'd like to start with an easy one:"

Can you point out where anyone here claimed that no one can name one thing I've gotten wrong, or are you mistaken about that? I'm sure you'll also note that I pointed out some of my own mistakes on the first page of this thread.

It was the general attitude and the reason the thread was made in the first place. If it will satisfy you, your Blueberry Tartness, I will change the sentence to "The forum's users have created a thread which insinuates that no one will be able to point out a single mistake made by Mark Roberts." Would that be better?

[JAMartell]

However, you are seen in your film "The Ground Zeros" baiting Les Jamison to name "one thing" you "got wrong." Also, isn't there a title in that same video reading something like "So far they have not been able to name one thing I got wrong?"

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I don't agree with the twoofers, but the premise of this thread does seem a bit fallacious. Just because someone hasn't made any errors, does not mean they have proven what they set out to prove.

Example:

I wish to prove that the earth is flat.

7 + 4 = 11
5^2 = 25
Blue paint + Yellow paint = Green paint
A bachelor is an unmarried man.

Now, can anyone point to any errors I've made?
Did I prove the earth is flat?

Just sayin . . .

[Totovader]

I don't agree with the twoofers, but the premise of this thread does seem a bit fallacious. Just because someone hasn't made any errors, does not mean they have proven what they set out to prove.

Example:

I wish to prove that the earth is flat.

7 + 4 = 11
5^2 = 25
Blue paint + Yellow paint = Green paint
A bachelor is an unmarried man.

Now, can anyone point to any errors I've made?
Did I prove the earth is flat?

Just sayin . . .

Nor does it prove that the conspiracists are complete and utter morons.

That is proven by their claims, not their unwillingness to address the facts.

[AZCat]

I don't agree with the twoofers, but the premise of this thread does seem a bit fallacious. Just because someone hasn't made any errors, does not mean they have proven what they set out to prove.

Example:

I wish to prove that the earth is flat.

7 + 4 = 11
5^2 = 25
Blue paint + Yellow paint = Green paint
A bachelor is an unmarried man.

Now, can anyone point to any errors I've made?
Did I prove the earth is flat?

Just sayin . . .

The term you are looking for (I think) is ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi)(also known as irrelevant thesis).

[Gravy]

I don't agree with the twoofers, but the premise of this thread does seem a bit fallacious. Just because someone hasn't made any errors, does not mean they have proven what they set out to prove.Huh? I make errors all the time, Steven. The purpose of the thread, if I understand it correctly, was to encourage people who were taking content-free potshots at me to post substantive, evidence-based critiques instead.

[Gravy]

Done.Thank you.

I am. Finals are about to begin. However, when break starts this week I would like to discuss this topic more in depth. You can hold me to that.Good luck with exams!

Also Mark, I'd soon like to discuss the recent email conversation you and I had recently in which you, instead of answering my question, decided to spin it around on me and turn it into something I did not say at all.There's nothing to discuss. If you haven't figured out by now how to rephrase the question, and why you need to, then I suggest you spend more time on that. It ain't rocket science, Justin.

It was the general attitude and the reason the thread was made in the first place. If it will satisfy you, your Blueberry Tartness, I will change the sentence to "The forum's users have created a thread which insinuates that no one will be able to point out a single mistake made by Mark Roberts." Would that be better?No, just as wrong isn't better. Why do yo make these assumptions? You know what you could have done instead?
Asked.See my post immediately above for the answer.

So, I haven't seen your retraction of your claim about what I got wrong yet. Please post that in both forums at your earliest convenience.

[Gravy]

However, you are seen in your film "The Ground Zeros" baiting Les Jamison to name "one thing" you "got wrong."Yes, that was my challenge to Les Jamieson after six months of confronting him at Ground Zero. And he couldn't name a single thing I got wrong. Did I say I issued that challenge to the world? Well-researched corrections to my work are always welcome. What's the big deal?

Justin, shouldn't you be concerned with establishing truth, rather than obsessing about me?

Also, isn't there a title in that same video reading something like "So far they have not been able to name one thing I got wrong?"See above. That's absolutely correct. Not a single one of the Ground Zero creeps ever named anything I got wrong, while I corrected hundreds of their errors.

You know what else not a single one of them ever knew? NIST's simple explanation of the tower collapses, although their main claim was that the towers couldn't have collapsed as they did.

What do you think about that, Justin? Truth movement leaders like Les Jamieson and Luke Rudkowski who rant out there every single week, but who couldn't be bothered to read one paragraph in NIST's FAQ or listen to and remember my explanations. Not once.

"Truth Movement"
:dl:

ETA: by the way, what happened to all that footage you shot of me at Ground Zero on 9/11/06? It seemed like you got about 20 minutes of interview with me and conversations between me and others. I'm in hours and hours of truther videos, but only a few minutes has ever been made public, mostly the Loose Change crew's video of me arguing with Alex Jones. A nice guy named Fletcher interviewed me twice for a truther documentary he was making, but I guess that never was finished. Can I buy the footage from you? I'd be interested to see it.

[Gravy]

Let's have a look at this. I said,
LastChild, unless you have evidence that refutes a factual statement of mine, kindly take your juvenile nonsense elsewhere.

You replied,
You don't believe or have been spewing any of that crap I'm refuting?

That's right, to my request to take your childish act elsewhere, you replied with actual gibberish. I expected nothing less. Now take your sad, ignorant, content-free act elsewhere.

[R.Mackey]

I follow it fine thank you.

In your previous post to this one, you stated that you "will never understand" the argument, yet you then say you follow it fine.

You seem to be singularly confused.

Let me try a different approach.

As I stated previously, no "debunker" nor scientist nor knowledgeable person believes it would take "vast amounts of explosives" to destroy a WTC Tower. This is because we follow the work of Bazant & Zhou, and we accept that all one would have to do is destroy a single floor (at or about the 98th floor or lower) to cause a complete collapse. The WTC Towers were quite large and constructed of steel, and dynamiting an entire floor would take some doing, but this is hardly impossible. Particularly if you don't care about controlling the debris field.

In my whitepaper, I estimate a minimum amount of explosives -- about 150 pounds, assuming ideal placement and extensive weakening of structural members prior to triggering. Of course, this idea is absurd as an explanation for September 11th, because there's no possible way for a precision demolition to survive the impact and fire, which it would have to do in order to collapse from the impact floors. Also, it's likely that had the columns been weakened, the Tower would have collapsed on contact, making the demolition moot. Still, the point is that we do not require vast amounts of explosives.

I also suggest a more robust demolition scenario involving a single, very large, well armored and fireproofed explosive charge that could conceivably survive the impact and fire. I estimate such a charge at roughly 3,000 pounds of explosive, much larger but still not beyond the realm of imagination. This scenario also didn't happen, of course, since this would not give us the characteristic inward bowing and failure of the perimeter walls, and would have been clearly audible as well as detected on seismographs. Yet again, the point is that vast explosives are not required. My estimates are based on simple reasoning and are subject to refinement, but they're in the right ballpark. And they're credible.

The only people who require vast amount of explosives are, once again, the Truth Movement. For example, consider the case of Dr. Griffin, who as author of several books, "fact checker" for Loose Change: Final Cut, and inspiration for the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is clearly a mainstream figure. While he never, ever clearly articulates his hypothesis, we can demonstrate easily that he believes in both a huge number of explosives and a huge quantity of explosives.

From his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 185, Dr. Griffin expresses his belief that the steel columns were mainly cut into 20 to 50 foot sections, and that this was done by explosives. This implies that explosives were placed at roughly every third floor throughout the entire structure, and presumably on every single column as well. This places a lower limit on the number of charges Dr. Griffin believes in at over 7,000. Not very feasible.

From the same book, page 188, Dr. Griffin states that the gravitational energy contained in the Towers could not possibly generate the pulverization and dust seen. This energy is equivalent to at least 60,000 pounds of TNT equivalent. If this isn't enough energy, and Dr. Griffin insists that there were enough explosives to make a qualitative difference in the collapses, then he must believe that over 60,000 pounds of explosives per Tower were in place. That is, indeed, a "vast quantity of explosives."

So, as I said before, it isn't us who think "vast quantities" were needed. It's the Truth Movement. They simply aren't competent or focused enough to finish their own thoughts, requiring us to fill in the blanks and point out the absurdities for them, as I have done above.

Now do you understand?

[Zlaya]

Many words to demonstrate that you know nothing about the jihadist attacks and have found no errors made by Mark Roberts.

OOOOO EVIL muslim islamosfascist jihadists who want to kill us all.

Like the ones we use to attack in iran, bosnia and serbia, working for CIA??

Man, they really turned around and started hating our FAT AMERICAN DOLLARS (that are evaporating in value every instance), yet are still working for us attacking iran.

[Zlaya]

The term you are looking for (I think) is ignoratio elenchi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi)(also known as irrelevant thesis).

9/11 was a False Flag Operation / Provocation / Event.

One can debunk individual strawmen arguments, yet ignore the big picture of what caused 9/11 patsies to act in this false flag op, and especailly of how things transspired after 9/11. Remember the WTC 7? Antrax Attacks? "Angel is next"?

[uk_dave]

9/11 was a False Flag Operation / Provocation / Event.

One can debunk individual strawmen arguments, yet ignore the big picture of what caused 9/11 patsies to act in this false flag op, and especailly of how things transspired after 9/11. Remember the WTC 7? Antrax Attacks? "Angel is next"?

And one can chant 'false flag' until one is blue in the face, but without some evidence to back it up, it is and will always be just the desperate fantasy of someone who wants to believe.

[qarnos]

No not really. The 'trooooooooooofers' bring up questions, to a government that has shown a history of false flag terrorism, regarding the biggest terror event of 21st century.


Whaaaaat?!?!!??! :eek:

[Dave Rogers]

Really I thought you believed in a plane crash into a few floors can do it but the only way explosives could do it is if every floor was wired.

LastChild, let's try a bit of rational analysis here. The two planes hit the towers twelve floors apart, so there's a minimum value for the uncertainty about which floor the planes might hit at. Both collapses started on the impact floors, so for a demo using explosives the impact floors have to be wired. In other words, for the WTC towers to be brought down by explosives, every possible floor the planes could have hit had to be wired, so that the collapse could start in the right place. The planes could have hit any floor down to about 50 (lower floors were masked by other buildings, eg. the WFC and WTC7), so floors 50 to about 100 had to be wired, and each one had to have enough explosives to bring the whole building down. Therefore, the conspiracy theory requires many, many times the amount of explosives needed just to bring the building down, just to cope with the uncertainty about where the planes will hit.

And that's without going into the standard truther freefall mantra, which requires even more explosives for no other reason than to make the towers fall suspiciously fast. Jim Hoffman estimated 250 tons of high explosive in each tower, which is a totally ******* crazy number.

The plane crashes, on the other hand, can only damage the structure where they hit, so that's where the collapse starts.

Remember, there are different starting assumptions here. The truth movement claims that the planes couldn't have initiated the collapse at all. The conventionally accepted view of events is that they could, and that no explosives were needed. Throw away that latter assumption, and then you quickly end up with ridiculous requirements for explosives. It's a classic case of Ryan Mackey's inflationary model of conspiracy theories.

Dave

[westprog]

LastChild, let's try a bit of rational analysis here. The two planes hit the towers twelve floors apart, so there's a minimum value for the uncertainty about which floor the planes might hit at. Both collapses started on the impact floors, so for a demo using explosives the impact floors have to be wired. In other words, for the WTC towers to be brought down by explosives, every possible floor the planes could have hit had to be wired, so that the collapse could start in the right place. The planes could have hit any floor down to about 50 (lower floors were masked by other buildings, eg. the WFC and WTC7), so floors 50 to about 100 had to be wired, and each one had to have enough explosives to bring the whole building down. Therefore, the conspiracy theory requires many, many times the amount of explosives needed just to bring the building down, just to cope with the uncertainty about where the planes will hit.

And that's without going into the standard truther freefall mantra, which requires even more explosives for no other reason than to make the towers fall suspiciously fast. Jim Hoffman estimated 250 tons of high explosive in each tower, which is a totally ******* crazy number.

The plane crashes, on the other hand, can only damage the structure where they hit, so that's where the collapse starts.

Remember, there are different starting assumptions here. The truth movement claims that the planes couldn't have initiated the collapse at all. The conventionally accepted view of events is that they could, and that no explosives were needed. Throw away that latter assumption, and then you quickly end up with ridiculous requirements for explosives. It's a classic case of Ryan Mackey's inflationary model of conspiracy theories.

Dave

There are a number of alternative explanations - each of which is equally silly.

The pilot could have been sufficiently skilled that he was able to aim the plane precisely two floors above the explosives.

A lot of the floors were wired with explosives, but they only detonated those immediately below the impact.

Naturally the child won't address any of these possibilities. Just Asking Questions is a posture which precludes thinking.

[twinstead]

And one can chant 'false flag' until one is blue in the face, but without some evidence to back it up, it is and will always be just the desperate fantasy of someone who wants to believe.

Correct. Nothing worse than some ideologue trying to shove his world view down our throats with NO evidence to back it up. They believe whatever they are told as long as it supports their position and then expect us to believe them because they say it with 'conviction'.

And worse, they complain WE are the ones who are sheep. LOL

[pomeroo]

9/11 was a False Flag Operation / Provocation / Event.

One can debunk individual strawmen arguments, yet ignore the big picture of what caused 9/11 patsies to act in this false flag op, and especailly of how things transspired after 9/11. Remember the WTC 7? Antrax Attacks? "Angel is next"?


Why do you lie?

You, like other conspiracy liars, find it impossible to fit the collapse of WTC 7 into your imaginary conspiracy. Let me help: it can't be done.


Nobody knows the source of the anthrax. Stop pretending that you do.

Uh, "Angel is next"? The reason you know this quote is that you're referring to an interview with Bush himself. You throw out something totally meaningless and act as though you've presented support for your deranged fantasy.

Grow up.

[Swing Dangler]

I[QUOTE]n your previous post to this one, you stated that you "will never understand" the argument, yet you then say you follow it fine. You seem to be singularly confused. Let me try a different approach. As I stated previously, no "debunker" nor scientist nor knowledgeable person believes it would take "vast amounts of explosives" to destroy a WTC Tower.

Actually Ryan, you are wrong. JREF's leading debunker thinks it will take vast amounts of explosives....

Mark Robert’s claim-“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges. From his hit piece against WR”


But thanks though, RMackey, for debunking Roberts with your post. Now if he would correct that passage in his paper like a good little debunker we might be able to move on to the next error. I guess there is nothing more entertaining than a debunker debunking a fellow debunker.

[DGM]

[QUOTE=R.Mackey;3236167]I
Actually Ryan, you are wrong. JREF's leading debunker thinks it will take vast amounts of explosives....



But thanks though, RMackey, for debunking Roberts with your post. Now if he would correct that passage in his paper like a good little debunker we might be able to move on to the next error. I guess there is nothing more entertaining than a debunker debunking a fellow debunker.
Another thing to keep in mind (and it's silly that it needs to be said) is that demolitions charges are LOUD and are used when a structure is to be brought down, not long before. When a building is brought down with explosives, it is extensively pre-weakened to minimize the amount of explosives needed. It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges. There isn't a single shred of evidence to support the hypothesis that explosives were used in the towers.

Wasn't Mark talking about CD's in general in that quote?

Why do you try to lie to skeptics?

[Dave Rogers]

But thanks though, RMackey, for debunking Roberts with your post. Now if he would correct that passage in his paper like a good little debunker we might be able to move on to the next error. I guess there is nothing more entertaining than a debunker debunking a fellow debunker.

Actually, Swing, there's a rather important point you've missed here.

Mark Robert’s claim-“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges. From his hit piece against WR”


Note the bolded text. The pre-weakening is an important part of a controlled demolition in that it reduces the amount of explosives necessary. Far more important, however, is that shaped charges are used, and that these must be placed in close contact with the steel members to be severed. The effectiveness of shaped charges falls off drastically if they are moved any distance away from the object to be cut; for example, if charges have to be placed outside drywall insulation that serves as fireproofing. Therefore, although a conventional controlled demolition might need relatively small amounts of explosives, if you include Mark's modifiers in bold above, that's how "truly staggering amounts" of explosives are required. As usual, you need to read the whole quote you're referring to.

I suggest you look up shaped charges, and methods of defeating them. Spaced armour, where a thin pre-detonating layer sets off a shaped charge before it reaches a tank, does a good job of stopping shaped charge HEAT rounds, and in WW2 the Germans used wire mesh screens for this. Drywall insulation would do a very nice job too; all you need is to separate the explosive from the steel by a very short distance and most of the effectiveness is lost and far greater amounts of explosive will be needed to give the same effect. Therefore, with the qualifying adjectival clauses included, Mark's statement is entirely correct.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

Actually, Swing, there's a rather important point you've missed here.
Note the bolded text. The pre-weakening is an important part of a controlled demolition in that it reduces the amount of explosives necessary. Far more important, however, is that shaped charges are used, and that these must be placed in close contact with the steel members to be severed. The effectiveness of shaped charges falls off drastically if they are moved any distance away from the object to be cut; for example, if charges have to be placed outside drywall insulation that serves as fireproofing. Therefore, although a conventional controlled demolition might need relatively small amounts of explosives, if you include Mark's modifiers in bold above, that's how "truly staggering amounts" of explosives are required. As usual, you need to read the whole quote you're referring to.

I suggest you look up shaped charges, and methods of defeating them. Spaced armour, where a thin pre-detonating layer sets off a shaped charge before it reaches a tank, does a good job of stopping shaped charge HEAT rounds, and in WW2 the Germans used wire mesh screens for this. Drywall insulation would do a very nice job too; all you need is to separate the explosive from the steel by a very short distance and most of the effectiveness is lost and far greater amounts of explosive will be needed to give the same effect. Therefore, with the qualifying adjectival clauses included, Mark's statement is entirely correct.

Dave
Ok good point! ;)

Except he is conflict with Van Romero's assessment on how much explosives it would take. Van of course doesn't mention pre-weakening at all, only a small amount of explosives placed in strategic areas. And before you bring up the recant of his thoughts on what would bring the towers, you might want to link to where he or for that matter any CD expert states the amount of explosives it would take. I'm going to stand by Romero's original professional assessment of the amount of explosives it would take unless he has stated it would take staggering amounts of explosives. His analysis of how much explosives it would take has no bearing of course on his opinion on how the towers collapsed which we all know changed.

I think you can separate the two assessments and still have an accurate description on the amount of explosives it would take: a small amount.

[16.5]

Swing:

"I'm going to stand by Romero's original professional assessment of the amount of explosives it would take unless he has stated it would take staggering amounts of explosives. His analysis of how much explosives it would take has no bearing of course on his opinion on how the towers collapsed which we all know changed."

THAT is as good an example of desperation cherry picking as I've ever seen! Hey, any port in a storm there, hey Swing? Your hero has admitted he was completely wrong about the WTC, yet you cling to one comment in his initial statement (which was based on his review of video only as I recall), because he did not expressly disavow that comment?

I am reminded of a person who once threatened to report one of my posts because I chided him on his backsliding. He said that the buildings were "not subject to massive fire and smoke" but later claimed what he really meant was to exclude from his statement the areas of the towers that WERE subject to massive fire and smoke. In other words, the buildings were not on fire except those parts of the building that were on fire.

[Dave Rogers]

Ok good point! ;)

And yet you immediately try to sidestep it.

Except he is conflict with Van Romero's assessment on how much explosives it would take. Van of course doesn't mention pre-weakening at all, only a small amount of explosives placed in strategic areas.

These strategic areas, though, have to be in close contact with the steel support members for the shaped charge effect. If you read Mark's entire quote, you can see he's adding a condition that Van Romero wouldn't have considered: the condition that the charges cannot be placed close enough to the columns for any shaped charge effect. As a demolition professional, why would Van Romero consider such a scenario? He doesn't have to place his charges without anybody noticing.

I think you can separate the two assessments and still have an accurate description on the amount of explosives it would take: a small amount.

If, and only if, they can function as shaped charges in contact with the columns. Mark excludes that scenario in his comment, therefore taken as a whole, his statement is thoroughly reasonable. Stand by Van Romero's estimate as much as you like, it's not based on the conditions explicitly stated in the quote you're disputing.

The only estimate of explosive requirements I've seen that didn't involve shaped charge effects was Jim Hoffman's estimate of 250 tons per tower. That, I would argue, is a "truly staggering amount".

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

And yet you immediately try to sidestep it.
These strategic areas, though, have to be in close contact with the steel support members for the shaped charge effect. If you read Mark's entire quote, you can see he's adding a condition that Van Romero wouldn't have considered: the condition that the charges cannot be placed close enough to the columns for any shaped charge effect. As a demolition professional, why would Van Romero consider such a scenario? He doesn't have to place his charges without anybody noticing.
If, and only if, they can function as shaped charges in contact with the columns. Mark excludes that scenario in his comment, therefore taken as a whole, his statement is thoroughly reasonable. Stand by Van Romero's estimate as much as you like, it's not based on the conditions explicitly stated in the quote you're disputing.
The only estimate of explosive requirements I've seen that didn't involve shaped charge effects was Jim Hoffman's estimate of 250 tons per tower. That, I would argue, is a "truly staggering amount".
Dave

If you read Mark's entire quote, you can see he's adding a condition that Van Romero wouldn't have considered: the condition that the charges cannot be placed close enough to the columns for any shaped charge effect.
Seriously how can you place yourself in a position to determine what the explosive demolition expert, Van Romero, thinks or doesn't think?

I will stand by an demolition expert's statement and you can stand by a tour guide's statement. Fair enough?

[R.Mackey]

Actually Ryan, you are wrong. JREF's leading debunker thinks it will take vast amounts of explosives....

Supposing that you are correct about what Gravy believes, rather than simply quote-mining and misinterpreting as usual, then the conclusion is that Gravy has made a mistake in this respect.

Big deal.

I think I understand what he's really saying. But even giving you every possible benefit of the doubt, you've proved nothing of any significance.

I should also point out that we have no "leading debunker," although I have been and remain indebted to Gravy's work. If that's the best you can do to discredit him, then you should really consider listening to what he has to say, and dropping your own unsupportable beliefs.

[Dave Rogers]

Seriously how can you place yourself in a position to determine what the explosive demolition expert, Van Romero, thinks or doesn't think?

Fair point. I'd ask you the same thing, though: how can you place yourself in a position to determine whether Van Romero's statement was relevant to Mark's scenario?

I will stand by an demolition expert's statement and you can stand by a tour guide's statement. Fair enough?

The two are not in any way incompatible. I'm happy to stand by both.

Dave

[16.5]

"Originally Posted by Swing Dangler. I will stand by an demolition expert's statement and you can stand by a tour guide's statement. Fair enough?"

"The two are not in any way incompatible. I'm happy to stand by both." Dave

Ditto.

[Malmoesoldier]

So, as I said before, it isn't us who think "vast quantities" were needed. It's the Truth Movement

It would only require approximately a thousand pounds of high-energy explosives in each Tower to bring them down in that way.

The biggest errors in Gravys paper is the evidence that he dont mention.

SOME examples

* The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (although they never bothered to tell the American people about that fact)

* The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building.

* Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

* A former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated"

* The FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found.
* CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of alleged Al Qaeda members. And the 9/11 Commission claimed that it obtained most of its information about the attacks from these interrogations.

* The former head of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, who is a professor of fire protection engineering, wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed.

* In addition, the official investigators themselves were denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. The blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public. The most important steel to the investigation that could explain the collapse of the towers was destroyed without any investigation.

* Dozens of FBI and defense intelligence agents were threatened with arrest by the federal government if they got in the way of al-qaeda operations.

* Bill clinton let bin laden slip away.

WHY NOT TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT 9-11

[Swing Dangler]

Supposing that you are correct about what Gravy believes, rather than simply quote-mining and misinterpreting as usual, then the conclusion is that Gravy has made a mistake in this respect.Big deal.I think I understand what he's really saying. But even giving you every possible benefit of the doubt, you've proved nothing of any significance. I should also point out that we have no "leading debunker," although I have been and remain indebted to Gravy's work. If that's the best you can do to discredit him, then you should really consider listening to what he has to say, and dropping your own unsupportable beliefs.

Ryan, Ryan, Ryan, please examine the thread's title again. The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread started by a debunker. Discredit? Nope, just pointing out errors of his. I'm not "proving" anything, Ryan. I'm simply following the title of the thread, that is all. And it appears you support this exposure of yet another Mark Robert's factual error. I'm sure he will appreciate your thoughts on his error and then maybe we can all become better "debunkers."

I should also point out that we have no "leading debunker," although I have been and remain indebted to Gravy's work.
Uh oh! Do I detect a hint of jealousy? ;)

[Lurker]

In a discussion I had with a truther, he maintained that teh collapse could not have occurred by plane/fire. He posited that for the collapse to have occurred as we observed it, that each floor below the impact zone had to be wired with explosives. Then, as the building fell, each floor went off successively to create the collapse we observed.

I beleive he did say that at some point there would be enough weight and momentum that further floors would not need to be wired.

My understanding was that this was a major tenet of truthers, that multiple floors were required to be wired with explosives, not just one or two. If it is just one or two, they come dangerously close to saying that the mass above the impact zone was enough for collapse continuation which then questions whether explosives are needed at all. No, truthers I talked to explicitly said MANY floors were required to be wired.

Lurker

ETA: My point is that many explosives would be required to fit a standard truther scenario of myriad floors wired . Perhaps not so much would be required if one beleives that the weight of the top would be enough to collapse the WTC once collapse initiation at one floor has started. That is the crux of my point.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing:

"I'm going to stand by Romero's original professional assessment of the amount of explosives it would take unless he has stated it would take staggering amounts of explosives. His analysis of how much explosives it would take has no bearing of course on his opinion on how the towers collapsed which we all know changed."

THAT is as good an example of desperation cherry picking as I've ever seen! Hey, any port in a storm there, hey Swing? Your hero has admitted he was completely wrong about the WTC, yet you cling to one comment in his initial statement (which was based on his review of video only as I recall), because he did not expressly disavow that comment?


Really? Then you could surely point to the source where Romero's changes his estimates of the amount of explosives it would take changes from a "small amount" to a "staggering amount of explosives"? I mean you have that quote somewhere right? .....hello? Are you still there? ....

He was completely wrong? Really?
Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building. Source: Van Romero (http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html)

Dave-I'd ask you the same thing, though: how can you place yourself in a position to determine whether Van Romero's statement was relevant to Mark's scenario?
Fair question. I would state because the removal of the support of one floor was needed for global collapse to ensue, it wouldn't take staggering amounts of explosives, only a small amount placed in strategic places without the conditions Mark places on his non-expert analysis.

[Brainster]

Done.

Kudos, Justin. I have revised the post at SLC to note that you have acknowledged the error. We appreciate the transparency.

[DGM]

Huge pile of BS

Why don't you start a new thread and try to provide proof for your accusations.

I bet you'll do just as good as proving your 80% claim.

[Totovader]

Fair question. I would state because the removal of the support of one floor was needed for global collapse to ensue, it wouldn't take staggering amounts of explosives, only a small amount placed in strategic places without the conditions Mark places on his non-expert analysis.

These explosives... they would have to be not only impact proof, but fireproof as well. Additionally, they would have to be placed perfectly where the planes hit and the subsequent structural damage was observed.

And no one would have been able to see them?

And when did they supposedly go off? In any video of the collapse initiation, you can see the building just give up- you do not see explosives or floors being knocked out.

Your non-expert analysis seems to have some "big holes".

"Just asking questions."

[twinstead]

Fair question. I would state because the removal of the support of one floor was needed for global collapse to ensue, it wouldn't take staggering amounts of explosives, only a small amount placed in strategic places without the conditions Mark places on his non-expert analysis.

Then why is it so hard to believe that the crash of a large airliner at 500mph and resulting damage and raging fires on multiple floors was needed for global collapse to ensue?

If it wouldn't take staggering amounts of explosives, why wouldn't it take what the vast majority of experts around the world say it took for collapse to ensue?

[Swing Dangler]

“In a previous section we saw that the reports of a collapse on the 65th floor, or somewhere in the 60s, occurred not just after flight 175 hit the south tower, but just after the south tower collapsed. Because Rodriguez misunderstands the timing of that morning's events, he does not connect the "boom, boom" noises with the collapse of the south tower.”
Rodriguez then recalls being turned back by a Port Authority officer on the 39th floor after learning the floors above had collapsed as far up as the 45th floor.Source

Instead, Rodriguez would have us believe that twenty-one floors of one of the world's largest office buildings collapsed right above his head, and the momentum of those 21 falling floors was somehow arrested at the 44th floor, and not a window was broken, and he and the first responders weren't blown off their feet or killed by hurricane-force winds and dust and debris, and, in fact, no one else in the world has ever noticed this incredible event” Source: Mark Roberts Hit Piece (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home)

This assertion is a complete error: “Rodriquez would have us believe that 21 floors of one of the worlds larget office buildings collapsed right above his head”….but for the astute reader who doesn’t have reading comprehension problems, Rodriquez doesn’t want you to believe that. The source of this information is from the author of the interview, not a direct quote by William R. That is WHAT HE IS TOLD by a Port Authority officer. But the deceptive Mr. Roberts wants you to believe that WR is promoting this idea of a partial pancake collapse. Mr. Roberts could clear this up and contact WR directly as a follow up question. But instead he asserts that William wants us to believe that. By doing so, Mark can try to make William look foolish and unbelievable.

But Mark will state this is what one source has William R. reporting:
"And all of a sudden we hear “Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! And on the radio, 'We lost 65!' Meaning that the 65th floor collapsed floor by floor by floor, up to the 44th floor, the skylobby. Five flights away." At 33:55 of this video”

If you were just told that by a Port Authority worker as relayed in the quote above why is there any reason to doubt it?

Again, this is NOT William R. wanting you the reader or viewer to believe this, this is simply a recollection of what he was told.
I can't speak for Willie R of course, but I would anticipate that he doesn't believe there was a partial collapse, but at the time if you were told by the Port Authority what reason would there to disbelieve the statement?

But not in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts.

[Pookster]

Fair question. I would state because the removal of the support of one floor was needed for global collapse to ensue, it wouldn't take staggering amounts of explosives, only a small amount placed in strategic places without the conditions Mark places on his non-expert analysis.

(emphasis added)

How do you reconcile this with Gordon Ross' position?

[16.5]

Swing-y

"Really? Then you could surely point to the source where Romero's changes his estimates of the amount of explosives it would take changes from a "small amount" to a "staggering amount of explosives"? I mean you have that quote somewhere right?"

No he changed it from a "small amount of explosives" to

"A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

But I guess in completely destroying your pet theory he did not say staggering amount of explosives. So score one for the SwingMeister!

By the way, Phyrric Victory, let me show you one.

[DGM]

This assertion is a complete error: “Rodriquez would have us believe that 21 floors of one of the worlds larget office buildings collapsed right above his head”….but for the astute reader who doesn’t have reading comprehension problems, Rodriquez doesn’t want you to believe that. The source of this information is from the author of the interview, not a direct quote by William R. That is WHAT HE IS TOLD by a Port Authority officer. But the deceptive Mr. Roberts wants you to believe that WR is promoting this idea of a partial pancake collapse. Mr. Roberts could clear this up and contact WR directly as a follow up question. But instead he asserts that William wants us to believe that. By doing so, Mark can try to make William look foolish and unbelievable.

But Mark will state this is what one source has William R. reporting:
"And all of a sudden we hear “Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! And on the radio, 'We lost 65!' Meaning that the 65th floor collapsed floor by floor by floor, up to the 44th floor, the skylobby. Five flights away." At 33:55 of this video”

If you were just told that by a Port Authority worker as relayed in the quote above why is there any reason to doubt it?

Again, this is NOT William R. wanting you the reader or viewer to believe this, this is simply a recollection of what he was told.
I can't speak for Willie R of course, but I would anticipate that he doesn't believe there was a partial collapse, but at the time if you were told by the Port Authority what reason would there to disbelieve the statement?

But not in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts.
Swing:
How is a mistake if Rodriguez approves of it. He has been asked for corrections and he says he has none. Why do you disagree with Rodriguez himself?

[Malmoesoldier]

Why don't you start a new thread and try to provide proof for your accusations.

Are you telling me that you know THAT little about 9-11, really?. Huge list of facts is what it is. Maybe you know that little because you dont care about the truth?. i will give you some sources and dont respond before you know that its all true.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ItzwLVo8DwC&pg=PA161&dq=%22chapters+5+and+7+national+commission+on+terr orist+attacks+upon+the+united+states+2004+rely+hea vily+on+information+obtained+from+captured+al-Qaida+members%22&ei=XvlYR6u7KYWasgOR3sCaDA&sig=KxPuuLu_6sRaDbk536CE7StD-4A

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/washington/06cnd-intel.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1196993135-HmfZyvV1r92x3FPDmp6hyg&oref=slogin&oref=login

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EEDF173CF934A35756C0A9629C8B 63

http://web.archive.org/web/20040509021515/http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-tape07.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/11/con05439.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds_letters.htm

http://antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=2960

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B 63

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3206180&postcount=281

[Belz...]

So then you disagree with this...

And you agree how explosives can use gravity the same way the plane crash did? In fact that's what they do in demolition no? Make up your debunker minds.

That's because the truthers say they see "squibs" on the towers as they collapse, which "must" be explosive charges.

You're not listening:

It's the TRUTHERS who say that the buildings could NOT collapse the way NIST claims. It is THEM who say that the structure was too strong and that explosives HAD to have been used.

I'm saying it isn't so. Remove a floor or two, and you've got a nice, devastating global collapse.

[Malmoesoldier]

EDIT: sorry double post

[SDC]

S.Dangler, I'm sorry to say that I find your ... would "fisking" be the right term? ... about as dull as anything I've read here. Your "de-debunking," if I may use the term, has a very quick MEGO factor. (= My Eyes Glaze Over. The factor, I believe, is expressed in time units, as in, "The MEGO factor of the boss's speech at the Christmas party was 7 seconds.")

Pick up the pace. Make it snappy. Let's have a smoking gun, such as a videorecording of G.Ravy lounging by the pool at a swanky hotel with an attractive blonde in each hand (blonde being of any gender or species required), swilling champagne with a straw straight from the bottle, and stating, "I plan to make a ton of verifiably false statements. Now, where's the next blonde of any gender or species required?"

Thanks.

[Belz...]

9/11 was a False Flag Operation / Provocation / Event.

One can debunk individual strawmen arguments, yet ignore the big picture of what caused 9/11 patsies to act in this false flag op, and especailly of how things transspired after 9/11. Remember the WTC 7? Antrax Attacks? "Angel is next"?

Don't you think the "big picture" is made up of those individually-debunked elements ?

[DGM]

Are you telling me that you know THAT little about 9-11, really?. Huge list of facts is what it is. Maybe you know that little because you dont care about the truth?. i will give you some sources and dont respond before you know that its all true.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3ItzwLVo8DwC&pg=PA161&dq=%22chapters+5+and+7+national+commission+on+terr orist+attacks+upon+the+united+states+2004+rely+hea vily+on+information+obtained+from+captured+al-Qaida+members%22&ei=XvlYR6u7KYWasgOR3sCaDA&sig=KxPuuLu_6sRaDbk536CE7StD-4A

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/washington/06cnd-intel.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1196993135-HmfZyvV1r92x3FPDmp6hyg&oref=slogin&oref=login

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03EEDF173CF934A35756C0A9629C8B 63

http://web.archive.org/web/20040509021515/http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-tape07.html

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/11/con05439.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds_letters.htm

http://antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=2960

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0DA1531F936A15751C1A9679C8B 63

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3206180&postcount=281
I'm sorry I forgot I was only supposed to read the 'cherry picks' and not the complete articles. Isn't that how it works? The rest is just propaganda, right Malmoe?

[twinstead]

Don't you think the "big picture" is made up of those individually-debunked elements ?

Interesting.

It certainly does appear that in truther world, a "big picture" can become a living thing totally apart from all its supporting appendages with the ability to survive on its own even if every single one of those appendages are cut away.

[Swing Dangler]

Justin, you've made a bad start here, and now you're trying to move the goalposts. That won't work here. Present your evidence NOW that officials told workers at Ground Zero that the air there was safe to breathe, or retract your claim here and at Loose Change.

You're a man, not a boy, and you raised this issue. It is rude of you to have to be asked repeatedly to back up your own claims. This isn't about what you want to be true. It's about what the evidence says. When the honorable person jumps to conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence, he says, "Oops, looks like I jumped the gun on that one. I apologize." That's part of the maturing and learning process. It needn't be painful.

A scholar and truth movement leader should not have to be lectured about these basic principles of evidence and inquiry.

Is there anything unfair about my request?

Here you go Justin...j
From the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/ground-zero-air-pollution.html)

Other news reports suggest that the EPA was not fully forthcoming about the air quality at ground zero. EPA scientist Cate Jenkins argues that the agency plainly lied in its public declarations. Jenkins told CBS News in September 2006 that the EPA knew "this dust was highly caustic, in some cases as caustic and alkaline as Drano."9 In September 2006, CNN reported that an October 5, 2001 letter from the EPA to the New York City Health Department warned of threats to worker safety from exposure to hazardous materials.10 Yet this knowledge failed to affect the EPA's unworried public statements.

The EPA's September 18, 2001 news release stated that "EPA's primary concern is to ensure that rescue workers and the public are not being exposed to elevated levels of potentially hazardous contaminants in the dust and debris."11 Yet despite this, a 2006 study by Mount Sinai Hospital in New York found that "seven out of ten World Trade Center rescue and wreckage workers had new or worsened lung problems after the attacks."12 The New York City Department of Health has a database of 71,000 people exposed to dust and debris at Ground Zero—a database created in response to hundreds of people's complaints of breathing and lung problems. The health of these individuals may have been saved if not for the government's willingness to place politics above sound science in the aftermath of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

From the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091301.htm):

"EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City," said Administrator Whitman. "We are working closely with rescue crews to ensure that all appropriate precautions are taken. We will continue to monitor closely."

Mark, perhaps you should try debunking the The Union of Concerned Scientists instead of Justin.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing-y

"Really? Then you could surely point to the source where Romero's changes his estimates of the amount of explosives it would take changes from a "small amount" to a "staggering amount of explosives"? I mean you have that quote somewhere right?"
No he changed it from a "small amount of explosives" to
"A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
But I guess in completely destroying your pet theory he did not say staggering amount of explosives. So score one for the SwingMeister!
By the way, Phyrric Victory, let me show you one.

Good one! You left something out.
Did Romero change his analysis on the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the building? You know a small amount? You posted what the amount he thought was in the building not the amount it would take to bring it down.

I of course realize his change of heart, but does that change his expert opinion on the amount of explosives? Link please? Source at least?

Do you think it would have take a truly staggering amount of explosives to accomplish this:

"Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building. I think we can rule out the transformer as I'm not aware of any that were on the impact floors...but that "other source of combustion"..did he explain that other source of combustion would be a staggering amount of explosives?

[Malmoesoldier]

I'm sorry I forgot I was only supposed to read the 'cherry picks' and not the complete articles. Isn't that how it works? The rest is just propaganda, right Malmoe?

If an article or whatever states an fact or statement what then has that fact or statement to do with something else in the article or document?. do you know the difference in the color blue and red? are they the same color?. The points i made is proved with evidence, please dont respond until you know this, you keep responding in this very weird way and never care about the evidence. Are you saying that you cant take statements or facts from a book and then ignore the rest of the 1000+ pages?, isnt those two statements or facts the statements and facts that was writen in the book? you are weird man.

[uk_dave]

If an article or whatever states an fact or statement what then has that fact or statement to do with something else in the article or document?. do you know the difference in the color blue and red? are they the same color?. The points i made is proved with evidence, please dont respond until you know this, you keep responding in this very weird way and never care about the evidence. Are you saying that you cant take statements or facts from a book and then ignore the rest of the 1000+ pages?, isnt those two statements or facts the statements and facts that was writen in the book? you are weird man.

So let me get this right, you're saying that I can take from your posting ....

never care about the evidence

...and ignore everything else, and I can then use this statement as proof that malmoesoldier never cares about evidence?

Cool.

[Malmoesoldier]

So let me get this right, you're saying that I can take from your posting ....



...and ignore everything else, and I can then use this statement as proof that malmoesoldier never cares about evidence?

Cool.

If a politician says "I think everybody should have an RFID chip in their body" then it is a fact that he said that, you dont need to quote the rest of the book/document because it has nothing to do with that statement.

[DGM]

do you know the color blue and red are the same color?.

Hey Malmoe your right this 'quote mining' is fun. The rest of the stuff doesn't matter does it?

[Pookster]

Here you go Justin...j
From the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/ground-zero-air-pollution.html)

Other news reports suggest that the EPA was not fully forthcoming about the air quality at ground zero. EPA scientist Cate Jenkins argues that the agency plainly lied in its public declarations. Jenkins told CBS News in September 2006 that the EPA knew "this dust was highly caustic, in some cases as caustic and alkaline as Drano."9 In September 2006, CNN reported that an October 5, 2001 letter from the EPA to the New York City Health Department warned of threats to worker safety from exposure to hazardous materials.10 Yet this knowledge failed to affect the EPA's unworried public statements.

The EPA's September 18, 2001 news release stated that "EPA's primary concern is to ensure that rescue workers and the public are not being exposed to elevated levels of potentially hazardous contaminants in the dust and debris."11 Yet despite this, a 2006 study by Mount Sinai Hospital in New York found that "seven out of ten World Trade Center rescue and wreckage workers had new or worsened lung problems after the attacks."12 The New York City Department of Health has a database of 71,000 people exposed to dust and debris at Ground Zero—a database created in response to hundreds of people's complaints of breathing and lung problems. The health of these individuals may have been saved if not for the government's willingness to place politics above sound science in the aftermath of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

From the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091301.htm):

"EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City," said Administrator Whitman. "We are working closely with rescue crews to ensure that all appropriate precautions are taken. We will continue to monitor closely."

Mark, perhaps you should try debunking the The Union of Concerned Scientists instead of Justin.

Pardon me, but could you quote the exact part of your post where the EPA officials specifically tells the Ground Zero workers that the air was safe to breathe there? The only thing I've found in all that has been posted regarding this in this thread is the EPA advised using protective gear because of the danger. I hardly think that is the EPA telling anyone the air at Ground Zero for the workers was safe to breath.

Thanks.

[DGM]

If a politician says "I think everybody should have an RFID chip in their body" then it is a fact that he said that, you dont need to quote the rest of the book/document because it has nothing to do with that statement.
What if the article is about level 3 sex offenders. Doesn't that change the context of his statement.

[GStan]

Here you go Justin...j
From the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/ground-zero-air-pollution.html)

Other news reports suggest that the EPA was not fully forthcoming about the air quality at ground zero. EPA scientist Cate Jenkins argues that the agency plainly lied in its public declarations. Jenkins told CBS News in September 2006 that the EPA knew "this dust was highly caustic, in some cases as caustic and alkaline as Drano."9 In September 2006, CNN reported that an October 5, 2001 letter from the EPA to the New York City Health Department warned of threats to worker safety from exposure to hazardous materials.10 Yet this knowledge failed to affect the EPA's unworried public statements.

The EPA's September 18, 2001 news release stated that "EPA's primary concern is to ensure that rescue workers and the public are not being exposed to elevated levels of potentially hazardous contaminants in the dust and debris."11 Yet despite this, a 2006 study by Mount Sinai Hospital in New York found that "seven out of ten World Trade Center rescue and wreckage workers had new or worsened lung problems after the attacks."12 The New York City Department of Health has a database of 71,000 people exposed to dust and debris at Ground Zero—a database created in response to hundreds of people's complaints of breathing and lung problems. The health of these individuals may have been saved if not for the government's willingness to place politics above sound science in the aftermath of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks.

From the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/wtc/stories/headline_091301.htm):

"EPA is greatly relieved to have learned that there appears to be no significant levels of asbestos dust in the air in New York City," said Administrator Whitman. "We are working closely with rescue crews to ensure that all appropriate precautions are taken. We will continue to monitor closely."

Mark, perhaps you should try debunking the The Union of Concerned Scientists instead of Justin.

Did you even read the article you quoted? Almost the entire article was talking about the abundance of caution that was taking place, in spite of the encouraging initial air quality test results. Including the following quote:

"EPA and OSHA will work closely with rescue and cleanup crews to minimize their potential exposure, but the general public should be very reassured by initial sampling."

The 'general public should be reassured', 'we will work closely with the cleanup crews.' How are you making the leap to GZ workers being told the air was completely safe?

ETA: Yeah. What Pookster said.

[brasil]

Actually, most of the twoofers seem to be, indeed, claiming that all those floors, from the impact zone to the ground, were demolished. If you ask me, only one floor would need to be blown with explosives, but this is all due to the truthers' misunderstanding of how powerful gravity can be in these cases:

1) They don't think 30+ floors can smash through 70+.
2) So, Just one 767 isn't enough, and so isn't a one-floor demo
3) Ergo, demolition charges must have been placed on several floors.

It's all logical, until you:

a) Consider the evidence
b) Realise that 1) is false.

I'm going to explain in a minute why the statement you make in #1 is completely meaningless. I mean that literally: it is meaningless. But first:

This is my first post on this forum, and since it is, I'm going to have to introduce myself properly in a topic that I start (stay tuned for that). I specifically registered to this forum because I want to address Mark Roberts. I'm appalled at how rude and hostile many (most?) of the posts are on here towards regular people who want to know the truth about the defining historical event of "the new american century." That this topic's title starts with "Twoofers Only..." is insulting. Why would I want to have a serious debate inside a forum where the very raison d'etre for the discussion, namely the "truth," has been turned into a derogatory and insulting term? Sounds like the people who coined the term "Twoofer" have something to defend, and it's anything but the truth.

Now about the statement you make, that "They don't think 30+ floors can smash through 70+." Here's why that statement is utterly meaningless:

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure. Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur. On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself. It would be insane to do otherwise. So now we've established what should already be obvious: each floor and the floors below it are designed to support the weight of the floors above and much more.

2) In the statement "30+ floors can smash through 70+" you have left out one or more critical variables, which is why your statement is meaningless: you have left out the acceleration and distance part of the equation. We have already established that the bottom 70 floors were designed to support more than just the weight of the 30 floors above, so to posit that those 30 floors could suddenly "smash through 70+" one needs to know the a) the weight of the floors above the damage zone, b) the angle and distance those upper floors fell at when they struck the lower floors, and finally c) the velocity that those upper floors impacted each load-bearing section of the floors below, and in what order (perfectly symmetrically, asymmetrically, and everything in between).

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in. For example, perhaps if those 30 upper floors were suspended 100 ft. above the bottom 70 floors, and accelerated throughout those hundred feet and then made impact, we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

So, your "a)" is actually not "logical" at all because you haven't provided any "evidence" or even speculation showing what kinds of forces acted on the lower floors versus the forces they were designed to withstand, and your "b)" is meaningless until you provide something that carries more weight than just your opinion.

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....

[Gravy]

Actually, Swing, there's a rather important point you've missed here.

Note the bolded text. The pre-weakening is an important part of a controlled demolition in that it reduces the amount of explosives necessary. Far more important, however, is that shaped charges are used, and that these must be placed in close contact with the steel members to be severed. The effectiveness of shaped charges falls off drastically if they are moved any distance away from the object to be cut; for example, if charges have to be placed outside drywall insulation that serves as fireproofing. Therefore, although a conventional controlled demolition might need relatively small amounts of explosives, if you include Mark's modifiers in bold above, that's how "truly staggering amounts" of explosives are required. As usual, you need to read the whole quote you're referring to.

I suggest you look up shaped charges, and methods of defeating them. Spaced armour, where a thin pre-detonating layer sets off a shaped charge before it reaches a tank, does a good job of stopping shaped charge HEAT rounds, and in WW2 the Germans used wire mesh screens for this. Drywall insulation would do a very nice job too; all you need is to separate the explosive from the steel by a very short distance and most of the effectiveness is lost and far greater amounts of explosive will be needed to give the same effect. Therefore, with the qualifying adjectival clauses included, Mark's statement is entirely correct.

DaveYes, indeed. The truther selective quotenesia illness continues. The effects of the use cutter charges would have been patently obvious when they detonated. The effects of the use of blunt-force explosives to bring down the towers would have been stupendously obvious to people within miles of lower Manhattan. Twice.

[GStan]

<snip> whatever <snip> fact or statement <snip> i made is <snip> very weird. <snip> ignore the rest, <snip> man.

This could turn into a fun game.:rolleyes:

[Gravy]

Malmoe, this thread is about factual errors I've made. Please discuss your various Alex Jones-inspired absurdities elsewhere.

[Malmoesoldier]

Hey Malmoe your right this 'quote mining' is fun. The rest of the stuff doesn't matter does it?

Lets change it to "I think everybody in the world should have an RFID chip in their body" then

So no the rest of the stuff doesnt matter at all. What you are doing is cerry picking not me.

The fact is that all evidence that has something to do with 9-11 got destroyed. now why did this happen? if you dont know ask a three year old they will have the awsner for you.

[GStan]

Brasil
I know there are alot of engineers on here far more qualified than me to scientifically explain the errors in your points, but welcome to the forum from one new member to another. :cool:

[DGM]

I'm going to explain in a minute why the statement you make in #1 is completely meaningless. I mean that literally: it is meaningless. But first:

This is my first post on this forum, and since it is, I'm going to have to introduce myself properly in a topic that I start (stay tuned for that). I specifically registered to this forum because I want to address Mark Roberts. I'm appalled at how rude and hostile many (most?) of the posts are on here towards regular people who want to know the truth about the defining historical event of "the new american century." That this topic's title starts with "Twoofers Only..." is insulting. Why would I want to have a serious debate inside a forum where the very raison d'etre for the discussion, namely the "truth," has been turned into a derogatory and insulting term? Sounds like the people who coined the term "Twoofer" have something to defend, and it's anything but the truth.

Now about the statement you make, that "They don't think 30+ floors can smash through 70+." Here's why that statement is utterly meaningless:

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure. Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur. On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself. It would be insane to do otherwise. So now we've established what should already be obvious: each floor and the floors below it are designed to support the weight of the floors above and much more.

2) In the statement "30+ floors can smash through 70+" you have left out one or more critical variables, which is why your statement is meaningless: you have left out the acceleration and distance part of the equation. We have already established that the bottom 70 floors were designed to support more than just the weight of the 30 floors above, so to posit that those 30 floors could suddenly "smash through 70+" one needs to know the a) the weight of the floors above the damage zone, b) the angle and distance those upper floors fell at when they struck the lower floors, and finally c) the velocity that those upper floors impacted each load-bearing section of the floors below, and in what order (perfectly symmetrically, asymmetrically, and everything in between).

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in. For example, perhaps if those 30 upper floors were suspended 100 ft. above the bottom 70 floors, and accelerated throughout those hundred feet and then made impact, we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

So, your "a)" is actually not "logical" at all because you haven't provided any "evidence" or even speculation showing what kinds of forces acted on the lower floors versus the forces they were designed to withstand, and your "b)" is meaningless until you provide something that carries more weight than just your opinion.

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....
Welcome:
Your right. Then why do the "truthers" claim this? I don't know one skeptic that says this.

[Par]

The fact is that all evidence that has something to do with 9-11 got destroyed.


Yes. Just like the reason that there is no evidence in favour of creationism is that God concealed it all to test our faith.

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, brasil. NIST used a safety factor for the tower column gravity loads of about 2. That was a bit of an overestimation, which is wise. The actual safety factor for the core columns was about 1.67 and for the perimeter columns it varied from about 1.22-1.44. Some columns (about 5%) were determined to have exceeded their demand-to-capacity ratios in use, but these were not determined to have played a significant role in the collapses, since the buildings could easily redistribute the loads that those columns couldn't carry.

The towers used a steel frame, not steel and concrete (unless you're including the floors, but they only had to carry their own loads). A few steel elements on mechanical floors were encased in concrete, but these wouldn't have made a difference in the collapses.

Of course, the "30 floors vs. 80 floors" argument is a non-starter. The falling top portion only has to break through one floor for the collapse to proceed, and of course the floors were built to hold the weight of themselves and their contents, not of the building above.

You'll find a good analysis of the possible column failure modes in Professor Bazant's papers. He shows that even if the severed columns above landed squarely and evenly on those below, the collapse would have proceeded due to column failure with a downward movement of the top portion of only 0.5 meters. Obviously, the columns didn't contact each other in that way. So, even using extremely conservative assumptions in favor of collapse prevention, the energy of the falling upper portions vastly exceeded the capacity of the structure below to absorb it.

Do you have any specific engineering arguments that demonstrate that the towers shouldn't have collapsed as they did? If so, you can start a thread to discuss them.

You said you signed up here to address me. Again, welcome. Which of my errors would you like to discuss?

[stateofgrace]

I'm going to explain in a minute why the statement you make in #1 is completely meaningless. I mean that literally: it is meaningless. But first:

This is my first post on this forum, and since it is, I'm going to have to introduce myself properly in a topic that I start (stay tuned for that). I specifically registered to this forum because I want to address Mark Roberts. I'm appalled at how rude and hostile many (most?) of the posts are on here towards regular people who want to know the truth about the defining historical event of "the new american century." That this topic's title starts with "Twoofers Only..." is insulting. Why would I want to have a serious debate inside a forum where the very raison d'etre for the discussion, namely the "truth," has been turned into a derogatory and insulting term? Sounds like the people who coined the term "Twoofer" have something to defend, and it's anything but the truth.

Now about the statement you make, that "They don't think 30+ floors can smash through 70+." Here's why that statement is utterly meaningless:

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure. Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur. On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself. It would be insane to do otherwise. So now we've established what should already be obvious: each floor and the floors below it are designed to support the weight of the floors above and much more.

2) In the statement "30+ floors can smash through 70+" you have left out one or more critical variables, which is why your statement is meaningless: you have left out the acceleration and distance part of the equation. We have already established that the bottom 70 floors were designed to support more than just the weight of the 30 floors above, so to posit that those 30 floors could suddenly "smash through 70+" one needs to know the a) the weight of the floors above the damage zone, b) the angle and distance those upper floors fell at when they struck the lower floors, and finally c) the velocity that those upper floors impacted each load-bearing section of the floors below, and in what order (perfectly symmetrically, asymmetrically, and everything in between).

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in. For example, perhaps if those 30 upper floors were suspended 100 ft. above the bottom 70 floors, and accelerated throughout those hundred feet and then made impact, we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

So, your "a)" is actually not "logical" at all because you haven't provided any "evidence" or even speculation showing what kinds of forces acted on the lower floors versus the forces they were designed to withstand, and your "b)" is meaningless until you provide something that carries more weight than just your opinion.

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....

Welcome to the forum Brazil, maybe you should start a new thread about this subject; there are many learned people here who would gladly discuses this with you.

I take you are aware of the actual design of the towers? The floors didn't support anything, they ware braced between the external supporting columns and the internal core, they simply acted as bracing between the two supporting elements. This is called the tube in tube design, one whereby the floor trusses were not loading bearing but used as bracing. Anyway that’s how I understand it; maybe you could start a new thread and explain further how the 70 floors below held up the floors above.

Maybe you can explain exactly what load bearing structures on the floors you are talking about.

Feel free,also to say what you think happened, in the new thread.

[uk_dave]

I I'm appalled at how rude and hostile many (most?) of the posts are on here towards regular people who want to know the truth about the defining historical event of "the new american century."

Really? That's a coincidence because I've read a few 'truther' forums as well as postings from 'truthers' here and I've been appalled at how rude and hostile they are towards people who don't share their fantasy that someone other than 19 arab terrorists ... or maybe 19 arab terrorists but controlled by...someone else....or maybe it never happened at all...or maybe the people who fought back didn't...or maybe the poor woman seen in the hole of wtc towers must've been wearing asbestos knickers...or maybe no one died at shanksville or maybe someone in the pentagon deliberately had his own son on the flight which supposedly crashed into his place of work.....oh how they laughed....how they accused without evidence....how they pretended to know what they were talking about when they had not a single clue.... yeah, we all get pissed on this subject.

That's why I stopped taking 'truthers' seriously long ago.

[brasil]

Pardon me, but could you quote the exact part of your post where the EPA officials specifically tells the Ground Zero workers that the air was safe to breathe there? The only thing I've found in all that has been posted regarding this in this thread is the EPA advised using protective gear because of the danger. I hardly think that is the EPA telling anyone the air at Ground Zero for the workers was safe to breath.

Thanks.

Don't mind if I step in here... This is my second post, and I'm still responding to the posts which got me to sign up for this forum in the first place. More details about me to come.

Right off the bat, before I cite an official reference which answers your question, I'll speak from my own experience. I have lived in Manhattan for 12 years, and I was in Manhattan on 9-11, and on 9-12 my research began. Anyone old enough to actually remember 9-11, and especially anyone who actually lived here can tell you that we were all very concerned about the air and water safety of our city at that time.

I'll tell you why I personally had every reason to believe the EPA was maliciously lying (on orders from the Bush administration) when they announced that the air was "safe to breathe" at ground zero just 7 days after the attacks, on September. 18th, 2001. First of all, if you lived here (and I would be interested to know how many people posting here lived in NYC on 9-11) you could not avoid that smell. One whiff of the smell of ground zero burning (and we all had to smell it for months) and you intuitively knew it was toxic. I will never forget that smell as long as I live. It closely resembled the smell of burning plastic, but it was more than that, and it was BAD.

Next, have you ever thought twice about smashing a mercury-vapor, fluorescent light tube because you knew you would be releasing toxins? Have you ever done the right thing and recycled a lithium-ion, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal-hydride, or lead acid battery rather than just dump it in the trash? Should I continue listing the toxic substances that I knew, without anyone having to tell me, were likely in the WTC dust? I smelled that smell, I thought of 100,000 mercury vapor tubes exploding, 10's of thousands of computers smashing and releasing heavy metals, all of the asbestos, and it was just obvious that you DID NOT want to breathe the air down there. I made a point of avoiding lower Manhattan for almost a full year based on my OWN understanding, not what the White House and EPA tried to shove down my throat. I came to these conclusions on my own, on September 12th, 2001.

AND THEN, on September 18th, the EPA issued an official press release and made a public announcement, and I quote: "EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe."

(as I don't have 15 posts now, I can't post the link to the EPA's website showing the press release. use google to search epa.gov and you'll find it, or maybe this will work: epa.gov/oig/reports/2003/wtc/epapr20010918.htm)

When I read that statement in the New York times I must have almost spat out my coffee. They're kidding, right? All of that mercury, lithium, cadmium, nickel, lead, asbestos, burning plastic, PCB's from electrical transformers... turned into dust and spread all over lower Manhattan, kicked up into the air by the slightest breeze, and they're saying it's "safe?!"

To specifically answer your question: If the EPA makes a public statement and issues an official press release to every media organization in the country, saying the "air and water is safe," that's the same as "telling the ground zero workers the air is safe." Period. Your question is answered, thank you.

Finally, if they told the public one thing, and the workers something different, then we have another grave breach of the public trust. There is no way to spin this. They lied, and they had every motive to do so. The government needed the area cleaned up as fast as possible. If people had refused to work on the cleanup, that would have left more time for people to start asking a lot more questions and do a lot more scrutinizing of the debris (forget evidence of explosives for now, think "lawsuits" and "legal red tape preventing a speedy cleanup"). This last paragraph is my opinion, but it's more than supported by the facts.

[Gravy]

I'll tell you why I personally had every reason to believe the EPA was maliciously lying (on orders from the Bush administration) when they announced that the air was "safe to breathe" at ground zero just 7 days after the attacks, on September. 18th, 2001. Please cite this statement, or any official statement that the workers at Ground Zero were told that the air there was safe to breathe. The person who started that topic was unable to do so, nor was Dylan Avery, who criticized me about the same issue. Thank you.

ETA: I'll be out for a while. I'll check in later.

[brasil]

Really? That's a coincidence because I've read a few 'truther' forums as well as postings from 'truthers' here and I've been appalled at how rude and hostile they are towards people who don't share their fantasy that someone other than 19 arab terrorists ... or maybe 19 arab terrorists but controlled by...someone else....or maybe it never happened at all...or maybe the people who fought back didn't...or maybe the poor woman seen in the hole of wtc towers must've been wearing asbestos knickers...or maybe no one died at shanksville or maybe someone in the pentagon deliberately had his own son on the flight which supposedly crashed into his place of work.....oh how they laughed....how they accused without evidence....how they pretended to know what they were talking about when they had not a single clue.... yeah, we all get pissed on this subject.

That's why I stopped taking 'truthers' seriously long ago.

That's great. I guess I'm not a "truther" then. Or a "twoofer." Which is why I'm going to start my own threads that address very focused, specific issues, not broad topics where it's too easy to change the subject to "Alex Jones" and "forced RFID implants." I'm also going to ask that anyone who wants to engage me not use the terms "truther" or "twoofer" in my threads.

[16.5]

"I of course realize his change of heart, but does that change his expert opinion on the amount of explosives? Link please? Source at least?"

Dude, I told you: you are teh winnar! Your hero, the guy who said that the WTC collapse definitely NOT CD, has apparently never retracted his comment that if it was CD (and recall he said that it was not) that a small amount of explosives (which we agree he said was not there) could have somehow caused the collapse (and he said it did not). So you are the winner in the Slam and Lock the Barn Door after the Horse has Escaped Competition. Good job, King Pyrrhus of Epirus.

[Belz...]

If a politician says "I think everybody should have an RFID chip in their body" then it is a fact that he said that, you dont need to quote the rest of the book/document because it has nothing to do with that statement.

Unless the full statement was: "If I said something like this: "I think everybody should have an RFID chip in their body", then I'd be a loon".

[Belz...]

This is my first post on this forum, and since it is, I'm going to have to introduce myself properly in a topic that I start (stay tuned for that).

Welcome to the forum, then.

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure.

Yes, specifically when the thing ISN'T crashing down.

Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur.

We're getting less and less relevant to what I said.

On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself.

How much more is the question. You DO know about kinetic energy, right ?

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in.

What's your point, exactly, then ? I was presenting a short case of why the truther argument doesn't hold up.

...we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

Are you saying that those 30+ floors COULDN'T smash through those other 70+ floors under the conditions present on that day ?

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....

No, truthers are known to avoid stating what they think. It's easier to weasel out of a conversation when cornered.

[jhunter1163]

That's great. I guess I'm not a "truther" then. Or a "twoofer." Which is why I'm going to start my own threads that address very focused, specific issues, not broad topics where it's too easy to change the subject to "Alex Jones" and "forced RFID implants." I'm also going to ask that anyone who wants to engage me not use the terms "truther" or "twoofer" in my threads.

Go right ahead. We'll be here. However, it's only fair to advise you that "truther" and "twoofer" are two of the kinder things people who question the official account are called here.

[uk_dave]

Brasil, do you think you could describe for us how the wtc towers worked structurally?

Such as what functions the perimeter and core columns, and the floor trusses and the hat truss, performed?

[Pookster]

... AND THEN, on September 18th, the EPA issued an official press release and made a public announcement, and I quote: "EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe." ...

(emphasis added)

Welcome to the forum. I snipped much of your post because it wasn't responsive to my post. Please quote where the EPA specifically told Ground Zero workers that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. I think my request is quite simple to respond to. Either there is such a quote, or there isn't. I would be willing to accept something along the lines of "the workers no longer have to use their protective breathing gear" or such. "Near the WTC" isn't going to cut it. I want "at the WTC".

Thanks.

[Lurker]

1) The WTC towers, and all other tall structures, are designed so that the foundation and bottom half of the structure can support the top half of the structure. Not only that, the WTC was not designed so that the the bottom 70 floors could support exactly the weight of the top 30, because then as soon as furniture and people moved in, the tolerance would be exceeded and a collapse would occur. On the contrary, the architects and engineers wisely over-designed the steel and concrete frame to support considerably MORE than just the weight of the structure on itself. It would be insane to do otherwise. So now we've established what should already be obvious: each floor and the floors below it are designed to support the weight of the floors above and much more.

2) In the statement "30+ floors can smash through 70+" you have left out one or more critical variables, which is why your statement is meaningless: you have left out the acceleration and distance part of the equation. We have already established that the bottom 70 floors were designed to support more than just the weight of the 30 floors above, so to posit that those 30 floors could suddenly "smash through 70+" one needs to know the a) the weight of the floors above the damage zone, b) the angle and distance those upper floors fell at when they struck the lower floors, and finally c) the velocity that those upper floors impacted each load-bearing section of the floors below, and in what order (perfectly symmetrically, asymmetrically, and everything in between).

The simple conjecture that "30+ floors can smash through 70+" is meaningless until the rest of that information is plugged in. For example, perhaps if those 30 upper floors were suspended 100 ft. above the bottom 70 floors, and accelerated throughout those hundred feet and then made impact, we might expect something much more catastrophic than if just one corner of those floors tipped over and just a fraction of the total weight fell just 15 feet and impacted a small area of the next floor down. Perhaps that collision would not contain enough energy to exceed the overall tolerance that was designed in by the engineers.

So, your "a)" is actually not "logical" at all because you haven't provided any "evidence" or even speculation showing what kinds of forces acted on the lower floors versus the forces they were designed to withstand, and your "b)" is meaningless until you provide something that carries more weight than just your opinion.

Notice how I haven't even bothered to say what I think happened, just pointed out that this discussion hasn't even passed the 9th grade....

OK, let's take it to Junior level engineering, OK? The formula you are seeking is an impact formula. Here it is:

F = W +W[1+(2hk)/W]^0.5

Got it? This is the minimum force acting on the base structure as the top falls down onto it. (See Mechanical Engineering Design, 5th Edition page 109) K is the stiffness of the building below, h is the height of fall of the top to the next floor, w is the weight of the falling body.

So, you can put this in a spreadsheet and see how h effects the force. The impact load STARTS at least TWICE the weight of the body. Do you think the designers included that factor of safety in their design? Further, the factor of safety would have to have been even higher because many supports would have been severed by the crash of the plane.

Glad I could help elevate the dicussion out of the 9th grade, as you put it.

[Lurker]

Welcome to the forums, brasil. NIST used a safety factor for the tower column gravity loads of about 2. That was a bit of an overestimation, which is wise. The actual safety factor for the core columns was about 1.67 and for the perimeter columns it varied from about 1.22-1.44. Some columns (about 5%) were determined to have exceeded their demand-to-capacity ratios in use, but these were not determined to have played a significant role in the collapses, since the buildings could easily redistribute the loads that those columns couldn't carry.


Ah, there you have it, brasil. The factor of safety in the design was 1.67. The equivalent static force from impact is at minimum 2xWeight so a factor of safety of two would have been required.

1.67 < 2.00 thus the collapse could not be arrested once started.

[brasil]

Brasil, do you think you could describe for us how the wtc towers worked structurally?

Such as what functions the perimeter and core columns, and the floor trusses and the hat truss, performed?

That information can be found on your own, without my having to attempt to explain it (which would just mean looking at the information myself and trying to summarize it in layman's terms). There are better qualified sources for that than me. Bait not accepted.

[Pookster]

That information can be found on your own, without my having to attempt to explain it (which would just mean looking at the information myself and trying to summarize it in layman's terms). There are better qualified sources for that than me. Bait not accepted.

In regard to the Truth Movement's desire to discuss and discover the truth, there shouldn't be any need to not accept "bait". Your evasion is duly noted.

[brasil]

Go right ahead. We'll be here. However, it's only fair to advise you that "truther" and "twoofer" are two of the kinder things people who question the official account are called here.

You just gave me a great idea for a thread to start (if it doesn't already exist - i've been on here all of two hours, only in this thread):

"List your reasons for believing that it is in the best interests of governments to reveal the full truth to their citizens about anything."

In other words, using such concepts as game theory, or cost/benefit analysis, I would like to see people list all of the motives they can think of for a government to announce the truth in every situation.

So far, I can only think of a couple: "They were caught with their pants down" and "a federal judge ordered them to."

[Mooseman]

I see you love our goverment.

[uk_dave]

That information can be found on your own, without my having to attempt to explain it (which would just mean looking at the information myself and trying to summarize it in layman's terms). There are better qualified sources for that than me. Bait not accepted.

No, you want to be taken seriously and you want to discuss your beliefs about the collapse of the towers.

Why can't you tell me how those towers functioned structurally?

[brasil]

In regard to the Truth Movement's desire to discuss and discover the truth, there shouldn't be any need to not accept "bait". Your evasion is duly noted.

It's not an "evasion." It's a matter of available time and priorities. If I spend the next two hours studying and then rehashing information that's in the public domain, that you can study on your own from much more qualified sources, then I can't spend the time educating myself enough to reply to Lurker's interesting reply, and Mark/Gravy (the reason I joined the forum in the first place). I'm not here to get quizzed by you. It is "bait." I'm not qualified to give a lecture on how "the towers worked structurally" off the top of my head, only to have you rip me apart when you inevitably find errors in it.

What I'm here to do is narrow my focus to small, digestible chunks of information, such as the point Lurker made about "safety factor," a great piece of terminology which will help me understand things better.

And to Lurker: I'm not even a Junior level engineer (however my father is a civil and structural engineer with 35 years experience), but I have a very solid science background, I understand debates, and I understand reason and logic. Just those skills alone are hard to come by in forums like these.

[16.5]

"List your reasons for believing that it is in the best interests of governments to reveal the full truth to their citizens about anything."

Oh brother.... Really? You've been here two hours, called us Ninth Graders, ignored the formula that has been presented to you that would allow you to understand the flaws in your reasoning that caused you to call us Ninth Graders in the first place, and after two hours here say "I understand reason and logic. Just those skills alone are hard to come by in forums like these," and now think it is a good idea to post a thread topic that is pregnant with assumptions and absolutes?

I agree! The politics thread is here:http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=6

Here is what the Politics board is: "Just what are our governments and politicians up to? Don't they use critical thinking and aren't they skeptical about the world around them?"

Good hunting, and welcome to the politics board.

[brasil]

I see you love our goverment.

It has nothing to do with how I feel about the government. It boils down to my own admission that "if I was the government, I would lie to the public."

I'm pretty sure history is filled with far more examples of governments lying to the people than telling the truth. This is one of the core axioms of people who question "official stories" put out by governments. It seems a lot of people here hold the fundamental belief that governments don't lie, and I'd like to have them explain what lead them to that belief.

I think it has the makings of a fantastic thread. All historical citations of governments lying v.s. governments telling the truth. No conspiracy theories required: just boring stuff like drug safety, automobile safety, toxic waste, the economy, the environment, whether "I had sex with that woman" or not, "no new taxes," etc.

[Zlaya]

Don't you think the "big picture" is made up of those individually-debunked elements ?

Wait, you debunked Mineta's testimony? You debunked the fact that a plane hit the pentagon and no one did anything?

**** man, i should quit right now...

[uk_dave]

It has nothing to do with how I feel about the government. It boils down to my own admission that "if I was the government, I would lie to the public."

I'm pretty sure history is filled with far more examples of governments lying to the people than telling the truth.

And people lying to other people.

So, if a person sees an opportunity to make a fast buck from the gullible and the desperate by selling them a fantasy about a major, traumatic event, that's not too difficult to believe either is it?

Ever considered the possibility that you've been sold a lie?

(Yeah yeah I know you're going to throw that one right back at me, but the problem is, no one is going to sell me a story about the wtc towers collapsing through the impact damage and fires from the planes crashes.... I KNOW it can and did happen....do you KNOW different?)

[DavidJames]

It has nothing to do with how I feel about the government. It boils down to my own admission that "if I was the government, I would lie to the public."

I'm pretty sure history is filled with far more examples of governments lying to the people than telling the truth. This is one of the core axioms of people who question "official stories" put out by governments. It seems a lot of people here hold the fundamental belief that governments don't lie, and I'd like to have them explain what lead them to that belief.

I think it has the makings of a fantastic thread. All historical citations of governments lying v.s. governments telling the truth. No conspiracy theories required: just boring stuff like drug safety, automobile safety, toxic waste, the economy, the environment, whether "I had sex with that woman" or not, "no new taxes," etc.I find it interesting that your first post attempts to deal with the collapse from an engineering perspective and your attempt to dismiss some comments as "simple conjecture". Then a few people bring some actual facts and forumla's and you quickly retreat from that approach. Now you want to concentrate on government lies. Another CT joker, how embarrasing for you to find out you're out of your league here.

Welcome to the forum.

[SDC]

Wait, you debunked Mineta's testimony? You debunked the fact that a plane hit the pentagon and no one did anything?

**** man, i should quit right now...

Thank heavens! Yes, yes, indeed. Here's your hat, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[brasil]

I find it interesting that your first post attempts to deal with the collapse from an engineering perspective and your attempt to dismiss some comments as "simple conjecture". Then a few people bring some actual facts and forumla's and you quickly retreat from that approach. Now you want to concentrate on government lies. Another CT joker, how embarrasing for you to find out you're out of your league here.

Welcome to the forum.

I have not "retreated" from anything. My post #491 is my response to you as well. I'll have to stop replying to distracting comments such as yours if I'm even going to have a chance to get back to the "engineering perspective" angle.... I'm at work, and when I'm not at work I have a life, believe it or not.

[Coffee]

It seems a lot of people here hold the fundamental belief that governments don't lie

That is BS.


I think it has the makings of a fantastic thread. All historical citations of governments lying v.s. governments telling the truth. No conspiracy theories required: just boring stuff like drug safety, automobile safety, toxic waste, the economy, the environment, whether "I had sex with that woman" or not, "no new taxes," etc.


That sort of discussion belongs in the politics sub forum.
(http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

[uk_dave]

I have not "retreated" from anything. My post #491 is my response to you as well. I'll have to stop replying to distracting comments such as yours if I'm even going to have a chance to get back to the "engineering perspective" angle.... I'm at work, and when I'm not at work I have a life, believe it or not.

Ahhhh ok...another fearless part time fighter for truth and justice. I guess the families of those killed on 9-11 will just have to wait.


Ever thought of giving up your job and stopping paying tax to the government you believe covered up the truth about 9-11?


Or maybe the IRS and Santa scares you more.......