Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Swing Dangler]

SDC-You are suggesting that "consult" means really that Nigro had to take Silverstein's direction in some way. This is the bunk. Dave is right.
Nope not at all. He consulted with Silverstein about what to do with the building or the operations. In other words he exchanged views and in the context of Larry's statement it sounds like that is exactly what they did. "Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." Well notice the term smartest. What other smart options did they exchange views about and rule out?

But then again, the Chief says he didn't consult with the buildings owner.
The buildings owner stated that he did. Larry's press release said he did. Who is lying who is not?

They didn't need it. They got it. But they certainly didn't need it.
According to your debunk friends, the Chief didn't even contact the owner.

johnny karate-He clearly states that WTC7 collapsed because of damage and fire. Nowhere does he state or imply that he, or anyone else in the FDNY, had a hand in demolishing WTC7, as you have been implying they might have.
He also stated he didn't consult with the buildings owner but Larry states otherwise. So the whole email is called into question because of this discrepancy.
If the decision was made to "demolish" the building without the proper chain of actions, permissions, insurance sign offs, etc. it might be wise to suggest fire and damage was the cause. Besides, he only made a decision, fire departments don't demolish buildings, as in the example I linked to.

16.5You see, Swing? He made the decision. So, try to stop parsing out words, you are really, really bad at it.[/QUOTE
Parsing words? Did he consult with the buildings owner or not? He says he didn't. Larry says he did. Which is it? Until this contradiction can be factually resolved the rest of the email is subject to the same scrutiny.

Besides, how can the good Chief speak for NIST or FEMA anyway with regards to the cause of collapse? Gotcha.

And notice he states: clear a collapse zone, not "pull it", pull them, etc. Apparently whoever contacted the good chief steered clear of Lucky Larry's particular phrase as the Chief doesn't mention that at all.
So we have- "pull it" mean:
1. remove firefighters out of the building that they weren't even in.
2. clear a collapse zone.
3. or demolish a building.

FEMA contradicts number 1. The Chief contradicts number 2 until it he clears up the confusion regarding his contact or non-contact with the building owner. And considering the characteristics of the collapse itself, number 3 seems to be the best answer.

[QUOTE]It is an out and out lie, without question. It is also slander (when he said it live at the event). It is also libel (when he broadcast it and/or published it on the internet). It would also be fraud if he makes money from his false statements but I, personally, do not know if he has, as yet (although he may well have with his "legal defence fund" farce.)
So, the question remains, and I'll direct this to SwingDangler since he/she is the one trying to defend Kevin Ryan's obvious lie here: SwingDangler, why do you attempt to defend Kevin Ryan's obvious, blatant, and clearly intentional lie?

Out and out lie without question? So you tested the steel for explosive residue to qualify that comment? Never mind I now the answer so of course that statement is wrong. Don't forget what FEMA stated about the probability of fire causing the collapse! You know a low probability.What burns hot enough in an office fire to melt holes in steel?;) That big 'mystery' everyone is aware of.

Oh and if you want to prove it wasn't a lie, hook Lucky Larry up to a lie detector and issue forth the questions. Until otherwise it remains a valid interpretation of his statements.

I (a male) did not watch the presentation and as you can tell if you read the thread regarding this error, the focus of my comment was on the Mark's comment on the slide's wording. The suggestion of a CD remains a valid theory until it is dis-proven of course. This doesn't make it a lie.


16.5 WOW! I did not bother looking at Gravy's article, but compare the article
Imagine that, defending something you've never read. How dare you! :newlol

to what Swing said:
"In Kevin Ryan's slide presentation, the change from “he” to “we” simply reflects the updated information as released to the public by Silverstein’s own office via the State Department. But in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts, this is Kevin Ryan lying to support a claim."
What Ryan did was indefensible, and Swing's defense of that deliberate misquote is likewise.
Pathetic Swing.

You must have missed Larry's press release that qualified the change in Ryan's slide. But that doesn't surprise me considering you didn't even read Mark's paper.

[uk_dave]

Imagine that, defending something you've never read. How dare you! :newlol



Imagine that, criticising something you've never comprehended. How 'truther' of you. :bunpan

[16.5]

* Waterboy mode on:

"[The FDNY had to ask Silverstein's permission to blow up the World Trade Center] for the same reasons the FD needed to consult with the owner of the building in the article that I linked to before demolishing it."

* Waterboy mode off.

I am sure that Swing will back me up on this minor change, seeing as how he valiantly scrambled to Waterboy’s defense when Waterboy changed:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

To

“I said .... maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And [the Fire Commander and I ] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

/INTELLECTUALY BANKRUPT. Don’t the Truthers ever get mad when they find out the stars of their movement lie to them?

Swing Sez: “Imagine that, defending something you've never read. How dare you!”

Can you not get a single thing correct in your whole existence? I did not say I did not read it, I said I did not look at it. But please allow me to assure you that I have read it , and simply did not look back at it, given how pathetic and craven the Trooth movement’s reliance on this whole “pull it” nonsense is.

[Belz...]

The same reasons the FD needed to consult with the owner of the building in the article that I linked to before demolishing it.

In an emergency situation ? Oh, please.

If the building was demolished because it posed a danger, there is no reason to hide it. If it was a secret demo because of some nefarious purpose, they would surely not need such a confirmation from Silverstein on the spot.

[16.5]

"You must have missed Larry's press release that qualified the change in Ryan's slide. But that doesn't surprise me considering you didn't even read Mark's paper."

Ah yes, I did miss the press release that gave permission to Waterboy to change a direct quote from "they made the decision" to "we made the decision."

Don't you get angry that Waterboy deceived you?

[ref]

Oh my, still this nonsense.

And swingler, it was me who was in contact with Chief Nigro. You just don't get his message, do you?

[RedIbis]

there's also the sticky issue of you failing to provide proof that your e-mail was genuine.
not a computer expert? please don't hint everyone what my signature will be as a reminder of who you really are.
I will also hold totovader to his claim of providing proof that you already donated money to the charity he provided for you.


Heh? Are we going back to this again? Darat already stated that he would take the email down if he didn't receive confirmation that it was genuine.

Darat did not take it down in the 24 hr period. In fact, he received the necessary email verification which reads as follows:


Mr. Darat,
Regarding your request about permission to use my email sent to REDIBIS in the thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100488&page=8
Mr. RedIbis does have the permission to use the emails and it has been verified by me to be 100% authentic.
If you can , please do not remove the quotes since I stand by them.
Respectfully
William Rodriguez
P.S.- I BCC'd Mr. RedIbis on this note as well.


So, it looks like Toto needs to donate $100 to the charity of my choice. Or would you like to make the same bet?

[DGM]

RedIbis:
Did he clarify the all too critical question of how far from the building he was?

[Tolls]

Nope not at all. He consulted with Silverstein about what to do with the building or the operations. In other words he exchanged views and in the context of Larry's statement it sounds like that is exactly what they did. "Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." Well notice the term smartest. What other smart options did they exchange views about and rule out?


Blimey, talk about over-analysing!

[RedIbis]

RedIbis:
Did he clarify the all too critical question of how far from the building he was?

He was clear that he wasn't 100ft and Gravy was wrong about getting that info from him.

This bassackward strategy Gravy employs suggests that he gets to keep a claim unless his error is corrected. This is ridiculous. If his claim is refuted and he has no source, he should remove it from his paper.

[Swing Dangler]

Oh my, still this nonsense.

And swingler, it was me who was in contact with Chief Nigro. You just don't get his message, do you?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Any chance you can contact him and asking him why Larry Silverstein contradicts the statement in his email?

Thanks!

Belz...
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
The same reasons the FD needed to consult with the owner of the building in the article that I linked to before demolishing it.
In an emergency situation ? Oh, please.

If the building was demolished because it posed a danger, there is no reason to hide it. If it was a secret demo because of some nefarious purpose, they would surely not need such a confirmation from Silverstein on the spot.

Belz did you read the article that I linked to earlier where the fire department made a decision to demolish part of a building and then the whole building after consulting with a contractor and the buildings owners?

If you did read it, did you understand some of the hindrances to demolishing that building??

[GStan]

So, it looks like Toto needs to donate $100 to the charity of my choice. Or would you like to make the same bet?

How about some Truth Movement Adult Education classes, with a curriculum top-heavy on logic and critical thinking skills? ;)

[ref]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Any chance you can contact him and asking him why Larry Silverstein contradicts the statement in his email?

Thanks!


To save us all the time and effort, he does not believe it was a demolition. It was not a demolition. He told me he does not believe in a demolition. He did not give a demolition order, he gave an evacuation order. FDNY was not involved in any demolition.

And to satisfy your curiosity, I told him about the "pull it" nonsense. He just chose to use a more clear phrase "clear a collapse zone" to explain his order, since you truthers twist every possible word out of shape. But no, you can't twist "clear a collapse zone" to mean a demolition, can you?

[DGM]

He was clear that he wasn't 100ft and Gravy was wrong about getting that info from him.

This bassackward strategy Gravy employs suggests that he gets to keep a claim unless his error is corrected. This is ridiculous. If his claim is refuted and he has no source, he should remove it from his paper.
How is he supposed to correct it if Willie won't refute or provide an answer?

About Willie, Have you asked him why he claims to be the last one pulled from the wreckage? He claims this to date. This is a clear lie you know. Why do you question Gravy so adamantly but let Willie slide on everything?
Isn't that kind of a double standard and a road block to you finding the truth?

[RedIbis]

How is he supposed to correct it if Willie won't refute or provide an answer?

About Willie, Have you asked him why he claims to be the last one pulled from the wreckage? He claims this to date. This is a clear lie you know. Why do you question Gravy so adamantly but let Willie slide on everything?
Isn't that kind of a double standard and a road block to you finding the truth?

Incorrect. He claims to be the last man outof the tower before it collapsed.

[DGM]

Incorrect. He claims to be the last man outof the tower before it collapsed.
And this is still not a lie?:confused: I seem to remember some fireman and a couple of cops and a few other lucky souls.

[RedIbis]

And this is still not a lie?:confused: I seem to remember some fireman and a couple of cops and a few other lucky souls.

We've been over this. Being the last man out before it collapses is not saying he was the last survivor to be pulled from the rubble.

[SDC]

He was clear that he wasn't 100ft and Gravy was wrong about getting that info from him.

This bassackward strategy Gravy employs suggests that he gets to keep a claim unless his error is corrected. This is ridiculous. If his claim is refuted and he has no source, he should remove it from his paper.

Nah. At this time W-Rod has changed his tune. You don't remove it in such case. Put in a footnote or other explanation, rather.

[16.5]

We've been over this. Being the last man out before it collapses is not saying he was the last survivor to be pulled from the rubble.

Say, that reminds me, where did you get that 5:00 claim you made earlier?

[uk_dave]

We've been over this. Being the last man out before it collapses is not saying he was the last survivor to be pulled from the rubble.
ummmmmmmm

You mean they ...... got into the rubble after the collapse?

[DGM]

We've been over this. Being the last man out before it collapses is not saying he was the last survivor to be pulled from the rubble.
Could you point me to the qualifier where he states this. You know, just so everyone he says it to is clear.

[RedIbis]

Say, that reminds me, where did you get that 5:00 claim you made earlier?


It was not a claim. To be clear, I was simply estimating the time based on the fact that Larry says we made the decision to pull, and then he says that they watched the bldg come down.

Since the bldg collapsed at about 5:30, should we estimate later?

[DGM]

Red:

Hi, I'm William Rodriguez. I'm not with the FDNY. Actually I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pd f

I think he might of told a fib then to NIST.

[einsteen]

Metamars,

I didn't read everything, but scanned the thread and only quickly picked up some things that looked interesting. I liked your example of the maximal force that becomes half of it for the two component structure.
Although this is different than springs the physics is consistent with it, because for a series of springs we have

1/k=1/k1+1/k2+...+1/kN

that implies that for two equal springs (k1=k2) we have k=k1/2, if that constant is half then that implies that the derivative of the F(x)=-kx function is also half of the value.

For parallel springs it is a simple addition (instead of the reverse addition) and it is interesting to note that this is exactly the opposite of electrical resistors. IMHO I think you are completely right.

[Dave Rogers]

You must have missed Larry's press release that qualified the change in Ryan's slide. But that doesn't surprise me considering you didn't even read Mark's paper.

You must have missed the bit where the press release didn't do any such thing. And I must have missed the bit where a deliberate misquote becomes something other than a deliberate misquote when the person quoted has said something very slightly different since.

Kevin Ryan lied when he changed the quote, and he did so deliberately. You have no argument to counter that, so you're blowing smoke. Your spirited defence of deliberate lying makes it clear how interested you are in finding out the truth here. Morally, you've got no ground to stand on here, and neither has Kevin Ryan.

Dave

[16.5]

It was not a claim. To be clear, I was simply estimating the time based on the fact that Larry says we made the decision to pull, and then he says that they watched the bldg come down.

Since the bldg collapsed at about 5:30, should we estimate later?

Well, you were wrong about the 11:00, and I note that you repeat waterboy's lie that Larry said "we made the decision to pull," and you ignore Swingy's press release that sets forth the timeline very clearly.

In the face of all that, you essentially pulled the 5:00 time out of your butt?

THAT is the essense of the Truth Movement! Well done!

[Dave Rogers]

Metamars,

I didn't read everything, but scanned the thread and only quickly picked up some things that looked interesting. I liked your example of the maximal force that becomes half of it for the two component structure.
Although this is different than springs the physics is consistent with it, because for a series of springs we have

1/k=1/k1+1/k2+...+1/kN

that implies that for two equal springs (k1=k2) we have k=k1/2, if that constant is half then that implies that the derivative of the F(x)=-kx function is also half of the value.


If you're talking about dynamic loading, then no, that's not valid. The spring constant cancels out of the equations for dynamic loading, so the minimum value is still twice the static loading independent of the spring constant. In your example above, the spring constant is halved, but the equilibrium value of x is doubled, so the force is the same.

Dave

[RedIbis]

Well, you were wrong about the 11:00, and I note that you repeat waterboy's lie that Larry said "we made the decision to pull," and you ignore Swingy's press release that sets forth the timeline very clearly.

In the face of all that, you essentially pulled the 5:00 time out of your butt?

THAT is the essense of the Truth Movement! Well done!

Yes, again, 5pm was not a specific claim, an estimation based on the collapse time of the tower in relation to the conversation between Silverstein and the fire chief. It was never meant to be specific.

As for 11:00, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you be more specific?

[RedIbis]

Red:



http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pd f

I think he might of told a fib then to NIST.

I've addressed this before and have acknowledged that there are contradictory statements. Not that I'm surprised as Rodriguez would eventually learn a lot more about that day over the years, meeting so many survivors, first responders, etc, all part of the long process of piecing together an incredibly complex day.

As I understand it, he currently refers to the fact that he was the last man to escape the towers before they collapsed.

[16.5]

"As for 11:00, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you be more specific?"

I sure can, yesterday you said that all the firefighters were out of WTC7 at 11:00 and soon thereafter a "debunker" proved you were wrong. That was in this thread, yesterday.

Gosh, how soon you forget.

[RedIbis]

"As for 11:00, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you be more specific?"

I sure can, yesterday you said that all the firefighters were out of WTC7 at 11:00 and soon thereafter a "debunker" proved you were wrong. That was in this thread, yesterday.

Gosh, how soon you forget.

Calm down. There are several competing accounts on when firefighting operations ceased.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."Paul Joseph Watson | January 5 2006 my bolds

A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation.

[SDC]

I've addressed this before and have acknowledged that there are contradictory statements. Not that I'm surprised as Rodriguez would eventually learn a lot more about that day over the years, meeting so many survivors, first responders, etc, all part of the long process of piecing together an incredibly complex day.

As I understand it, he currently refers to the fact that he was the last man to escape the towers before they collapsed.

Well done, Red I.! You have acknowledged that WR's story has changed!

This is the first step in a long road. Please continue

[RedIbis]

Well done, Red I.! You have acknowledged that WR's story has changed!

This is the first step in a long road. Please continue

I've stated this before. As Gravy should be commended when he ammends his research or admits his errors, I treat Rodriguez no differently. Memory is not perfect. It could take years for someone to recollect every small detail, especially in such an overwhelming and dramatic event. I imagine his conversations with survivors, firemen, first responders must be a constant process of revelation and recollection.

[SDC]

Calm down. There are several competing accounts on when firefighting operations ceased.

my bolds

A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation.

Is anyone actually saying that the firefighting operation continued through the day, or are you waving a red herring at a strawman?

I understood that it was generally known that they had given up fighting the fire some hours before the collapse; but also that there were certainly firefighters and others in the near vicinity. Am I incorrect?

[DGM]

Man he's slow. It took him 2 1/2 years to figure that out?

Maybe that's his problem with his statements to Gravy. He just hasn't pieced them together yet.:rolleyes:

[16.5]

Red ibis says: "A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation."

Of course you are wrong. Moreover, even in Trootherland, one must accept your contention that the conversation took place at 5:00, which, as we have already established, is a number of your own invention.

/I am always mystified why Truthers refuse to concede even the most minor points, even when they are relying on a number or fact they admit they essentially made up. Doing so would enhance their credibility and by refusing to do so, they end up looking like fools, but I guess it long ago stopped being about the Truth.

[Dave Rogers]

A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation.

Only if we accept that the conversation was held at 5pm, which you say was "not a specific claim". What time was that conversation actually held? Note that Silverstein doesn't give any idea of the time elapsed between holding the conversation and watching WTC7 fall down; it seems to be a common assumption of the truth movement that the latter immediately followed the former, but there's nothing internal to the quote to prove that assumption valid.

Dave

[einsteen]

post removed

[Swing Dangler]

To save us all the time and effort, he does not believe it was a demolition. It was not a demolition. He told me he does not believe in a demolition. He did not give a demolition order, he gave an evacuation order. FDNY was not involved in any demolition.

And to satisfy your curiosity, I told him about the "pull it" nonsense. He just chose to use a more clear phrase "clear a collapse zone" to explain his order, since you truthers twist every possible word out of shape. But no, you can't twist "clear a collapse zone" to mean a demolition, can you?

I don't see any of that in the email and you can understand why I won't take your word for it.

The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did.

And to my knowledge, firefighters don't demolish buildings. Special companies, the military, and terrorists do.

[Belz...]

If you did read it, did you understand some of the hindrances to demolishing that building??

What I DO understand is that it's illegal to blow up a building in Manhattan.

I say again:

If the building was demolished because it posed a danger, there is no reason to hide it. If it was a secret demo because of some nefarious purpose, they would surely not need such a confirmation from Silverstein on the spot.

That last bit would be the last of their concern.

So, which is it ?

[funk de fino]

I've stated this before. As Gravy should be commended when he ammends his research or admits his errors, I treat Rodriguez no differently. Memory is not perfect. It could take years for someone to recollect every small detail, especially in such an overwhelming and dramatic event. I imagine his conversations with survivors, firemen, first responders must be a constant process of revelation and recollection.


Maybe he forgot he told Gravy that he was 100ft from the tower?

Not that it makes any difference to anything about that day and what happened

How about we ask Willie about this claim?

Rodriguez said he was working overtime one weekend cleaning rest rooms on the concourse and mezzanine levels when Alshehri approached him.

"I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?'" Rodriguez told the Daily News.

"Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange," Rodriguez said. "I didn't forget about it."

[Belz...]

A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation.

I was under the impression that he was refering to firefighters AROUND 7 WTC, looking for survivors.

[SDC]

I don't see any of that in the email and you can understand why I won't take your word for it.

The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did.

And to my knowledge, firefighters don't demolish buildings. Special companies, the military, and terrorists do.

Welcome to the wide world of specious.

Does Silverstein say he talked with Nigro, or just with a fire chief? I think LashL pointed this out. I don't think you have referred to that.

No demolition could have taken place that day, in that place, without the FD's involvement. Ergo anyone who alleges intentional demolition also alleges FD's involvement.

Deal with it. Stand up for your beliefs.

[Swing Dangler]

What I DO understand is that it's illegal to blow up a building in Manhattan.

I say again:

If the building was demolished because it posed a danger, there is no reason to hide it. If it was a secret demo because of some nefarious purpose, they would surely not need such a confirmation from Silverstein on the spot.

That last bit would be the last of their concern.

So, which is it ?

You are probably correct that it is illegal if the proper channels and procedures, filings, etc. are not followed. The question of course is based upon a false dilemma.

[funk de fino]

As I understand it, he currently refers to the fact that he was the last man to escape the towers before they collapsed.

Well, explain this?

Last Survivor of the North Tower of The World Trade Center

[ref]

I don't see any of that in the email and you can understand why I won't take your word for it.

Well, actually you do if you pay attention. He says: "Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit." Demolition of WTC 7 is a conspiracy theory. See?


The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did.

First of all, he never said he didn't talk with someone. He said he didn't consult Silverstein, when it came to making the decision to evacuate. Making that decision was his responsibility.

Second, what does any of this "who talked to whom" matter? There was no demolition. All of FDNY would be aware if there was.

[16.5]

Swing:

"The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did."

The confusion is your own. The source of the confusion is that you have forgotten the first and primary rule of textual construction: the words used must be read in the context in which they are given. So, let us evaluate the source of your confusion. He said:

“For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.”

So you haul out a dictionary and claim that “consulting” in that sentence means ONLY “talked to.” So we are to read that sentence as “He made the decision without talking to anyone.” That would be remarkable! Or it could mean, “I alone made the final decision.” How do we know this? Simple he said “that decision was my responsibility.” That clause makes little sense in your interpretation, it is mere surplusage.

[Swing Dangler]

Welcome to the wide world of specious.

Does Silverstein say he talked with Nigro, or just with a fire chief? I think LashL pointed this out. I don't think you have referred to that.

No demolition could have taken place that day, in that place, without the FD's involvement. Ergo anyone who alleges intentional demolition also alleges FD's involvement.

Deal with it. Stand up for your beliefs.

Fair question on LashL's point that I missed.

Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. This site (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm) leads me to believe that it indeed is Nigro.

[Minadin]

Fair question on LashL's point that I missed.

Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. This site (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm) leads me to believe that it indeed is Nigro.

How so? I think you're making inferrences that aren't substantiated by your source material, based on your world view.

[CHF]

Yet another clueless twoofer wanders into WTC7-FDNY territory, with the same pathetic results.

Good job, Swing!

[Swing Dangler]

* Waterboy mode on:

"[The FDNY had to ask Silverstein's permission to blow up the World Trade Center] for the same reasons the FD needed to consult with the owner of the building in the article that I linked to before demolishing it."

* Waterboy mode off.

I am sure that Swing will back me up on this minor change, seeing as how he valiantly scrambled to Waterboy’s defense when Waterboy changed:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

To

“I said .... maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And [the Fire Commander and I ] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

/INTELLECTUALY BANKRUPT. Don’t the Truthers ever get mad when they find out the stars of their movement lie to them?

Swing Sez: “Imagine that, defending something you've never read. How dare you!”

Can you not get a single thing correct in your whole existence? I did not say I did not read it, I said I did not look at it. But please allow me to assure you that I have read it , and simply did not look back at it, given how pathetic and craven the Trooth movement’s reliance on this whole “pull it” nonsense is.

Were you going to cover the press release by Larry's office in your analysis.

Hmm you can read a paper without looking at? Heck you should be applying to James Randi's million dollar challenge.

DGM- Hi, I'm William Rodriguez. I'm not with the FDNY. Actually I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20T..._withlinks.pdf
I think he might of told a fib then to NIST.

William may have believed that at the time he made the statement.

Dave Rogers
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
You must have missed Larry's press release that qualified the change in Ryan's slide. But that doesn't surprise me considering you didn't even read Mark's paper.
You must have missed the bit where the press release didn't do any such thing. And I must have missed the bit where a deliberate misquote becomes something other than a deliberate misquote when the person quoted has said something very slightly different since.

Kevin Ryan lied when he changed the quote, and he did so deliberately. You have no argument to counter that, so you're blowing smoke. Your spirited defence of deliberate lying makes it clear how interested you are in finding out the truth here. Morally, you've got no ground to stand on here, and neither has Kevin Ryan.

Dave
Very slightly different? LOL! But different none the less. Nuff said.
Dave, go back and read the press release. Compare that to the article I linked to. There is no lie only updated information based upon the press release. Move on....

[16.5]

"But please allow me to assure you that I have read it , and simply did not look back at it, given how pathetic and craven the Trooth movement’s reliance on this whole “pull it” nonsense is.

"Were you going to cover the press release by Larry's office in your analysis."

Yeah, done that.

"Hmm you can read a paper without looking at? Heck you should be applying to James Randi's million dollar challenge."

"But please allow me to assure you that I have read it , and simply did not look back at it, given how pathetic and craven the Trooth movement’s reliance on this whole “pull it” nonsense is."

LOL!, Swing, you are pathetic. How can you be this disengenious?

[DGM]

William may have believed that at the time he made the statement.

That statement was from Feb 2004.
Doesn't he say that after medical treatment he went back to GZ. He must have forgot that part.
Rodriguez spent the rest of 9/11 aiding as a volunteer in the rescue efforts, and at dawn the following morning, was back at Ground Zero continuing his heroic efforts.

http://www.william911.com/

[LashL]

Fair question on LashL's point that I missed.

Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. This site (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm) leads me to believe that it indeed is Nigro.


If I recall correctly, Chief Cruthers and Chief Fellini were also on site commanders (one an incident commander and one an operations commander - this changed at various times through the day when other chiefs were killed or injured.) It could be that Mr. Silverstein spoke to one of them, or another commander, and not Chief Nigro at all.

As it stands, I think that it wrong for anyone to assume that it was Chief Nigro who spoke to Mr. Silverstein, and therefore wrong for you to assume that either of them is lying.

[Belz...]

You are probably correct that it is illegal if the proper channels and procedures, filings, etc. are not followed. The question of course is based upon a false dilemma.

Then, why do you assume they needed Silvertstein's approval ?

[Lurker]

Metamars,

I didn't read everything, but scanned the thread and only quickly picked up some things that looked interesting. I liked your example of the maximal force that becomes half of it for the two component structure.
Although this is different than springs the physics is consistent with it, because for a series of springs we have

1/k=1/k1+1/k2+...+1/kN

that implies that for two equal springs (k1=k2) we have k=k1/2, if that constant is half then that implies that the derivative of the F(x)=-kx function is also half of the value.

For parallel springs it is a simple addition (instead of the reverse addition) and it is interesting to note that this is exactly the opposite of electrical resistors. IMHO I think you are completely right.

Um, two springs in series would distribute the load between. That is not analagous to the WTC in any way. In the WTC you have a force acting in both directions so F is the same for the top as the bottom "spring". Plus, this is statics, not dynamics. The crux of my equation is relating a dynamic force to the equivalent static force.

[David B. Benson]

The impacting mass ...

The title says it. Collapse began with a sudden load of long duration on the core columns when the walls buckled.

[Gravy]

Nah. At this time W-Rod has changed his tune. You don't remove it in such case. Put in a footnote or other explanation, rather.No footnote or explanation will be added. I have repeatedly directly asked Rodriguez if he will clarify this point. Although he has responded to other parts of my emails, he will not address this. Since I got this information from Rodriguez and he has not changed it, I consider it to be accurate.

Could you point me to the qualifier where he states this. You know, just so everyone he says it to is clear.Rodriguez continues to both directly claim and to give the impression that he was the last survivor of the north tower. That appears several times on his websites, and his tours are named "Last Man Out." I have repeatedly pointed this out to him.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046f93dee78513.jpg

[lisabob2]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

[Slayhamlet]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

Are you capable of anything besides giving a textbook example of argumentum ad verecundiam? Please indicate specifically what Steven Jones gets right or what Mark Roberts gets wrong. Has Griscom written anything about 9/11 (something scientific, preferably) or is he for name-dropping purposes only?

[gumboot]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.


So you can name some errors Mark has made?

-Gumboot

[Coffee]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

What does Mark Roberts get wrong? Please explain in detail.

[AZCat]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.

Mark Roberts (aka Gravy) has at least one qualification that I can vouch for: he is not a moron.

Alas, about Jones and Griscom I can't say the same.

[AZCat]

Are you capable of anything besides giving a textbook example of argumentum ad verecundiam? Please indicate specifically what Steven Jones gets right or what Mark Roberts gets wrong. Has Griscom written anything about 9/11 (something scientific, preferably) or is he for name-dropping purposes only?

Griscom has written a letter to JONES (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf). I don't know if he has done anything else.

[Gravy]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.Your research skills are poor. I'm a tour guide. Do you have errors of mine to point out? This thread was started so that people who had been doing nothing but making ad hominem arguments about me could publish substantive, factual criticism.

[Slayhamlet]

Here's a thread about Griscom's letter to JONES, in case Lisabob2 is interested in discussing any of the specific claims of this character: Waiving the hands of physics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92509)

Just out of curiosity, do you blame the victims (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80868) as well, Lisabob2?

[pomeroo]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.


As matter of FACT, Jones has no peer-reviewed papers.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

As matter of FACT, Jones has no peer-reviewed papers.

That is not a FACT.

BYU (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/)

Notable peer-reviewed publications (from over fifty):
· S.E. Jones and J.E. Ellsworth, "Cold (metal-enhanced) fusion, geo-fusion, and cold nucleosynthesis", Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 2005, London: World Scientific, p. 617.

· S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (April 1989). Results confirmed:2001: "Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d+ d fusion reactions in metallic environments", Europhysics Letters, 54:449 “...the observed enhancement of the electron screening in metal targets can, in tendency, explain the small neutron production rates observed in the cold-fusion experiment of Jones [reference 1989 Nature paper].” Also, K. Czerski, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A27:S01,83 (2006) “ As shown in [Europhys. Lett. 68:363 (2004)], the screening energy of order 300 eV determined in accelerator experiments can explain the neutron production rate observed by Jones et al. [Nature 338:737, 1989] at room temperature.”

· J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, "Cold Nuclear Fusion," Scientific American, 257: 84-89 (July 1987).

· S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited," (Invited article) Nature 321: 127-133 (1986).
· S.E. Jones, A.N. Anderson, J.N. Bradbury, A.J. Caffrey, J.S. Cohen, P.A.M. Gram, M. Leon, R.L. Maltrud, M.A. Paciotti, C.D. Van Siclen, and K.D. Watts, "Observation of Unexpected Density Effects in Muon-Catalyzed d-t Fusion," Physical Review Letters 56: 588-591 (1986).

• Research discussed at the American Physical Society Four Corners meeting, 6-7 Oct 2006 • D3.00006 Construction of a Low-energy Single-wire Z-pinch Apparatus for Metal-catalyzed Fusion Studies http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778 • B4.00001 Laboratory Nuclear Astrophysics or The universe as seen from underground. • B4.00002 Low energy accelerator for studying laboratory nuclear astrophysics.

• Solar Funnel Cooker invented by Dr. Jones (1990's), including plans to build your own, discussed here: http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm . This paper explains how the same funnel can be used to make ice at night (with air temp about 50 F or less). Start with cardboard and foil cut to about 2’ X 4’ (0.6m X 1.2 m)… OR start with Aluminized windshield reflector and cut so length is just twice the width (photo below, putting oven-safe plastic bag over painted-black canning jar on circular rack).

• Dr. Jones has given several hundreds of the aluminized-mylar Solar Funnel Cookers to families in developing countries in Haiti, Bolivia, Kenya, Turkey and Ecuador, with the most recent solar-cookers given to folks in Mali (2006, see photo below) and Mozambique (2007). More will go to help refugees who have fled from Iraq. Updates: http://solarcooking.org/saveheat.htm and especially http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht . The latter paper compares the solar cooker made with windshield-reflector (OK) with the cardboard-and-aluminum-foil cooker (better), and it discusses a simple box cooker for low-sun days using just FOUR charcoal briquettes (see photos and data-graph below)...



{debunker mode] Are you claiming that BYU is lying???[/debunker mode]
;)

[KoihimeNakamura]

Notable peer-reviewed publications (from over fifty):
(1) · S.E. Jones and J.E. Ellsworth, "Cold (metal-enhanced) fusion, geo-fusion, and cold nucleosynthesis", Condensed Matter Nuclear Science, 2005, London: World Scientific, p. 617.

· S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. (2) Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338: 737-740 (April 1989). Results confirmed:2001: "Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d+ d fusion reactions in metallic environments", Europhysics Letters, 54:449 “...the observed enhancement of the electron screening in metal targets can, in tendency, explain the small neutron production rates observed in the cold-fusion experiment of Jones [reference 1989 Nature paper].” Also, K. Czerski, et al., Eur. Phys. J. A27:S01,83 (2006) “ As shown in [Europhys. Lett. 68:363 (2004)], the screening energy of order 300 eV determined in accelerator experiments can explain the neutron production rate observed by Jones et al. [Nature 338:737, 1989] at room temperature.”

· J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, "Cold Nuclear Fusion," (3)Scientific American, 257: 84-89 (July 1987).

· S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited," (Invited article) Nature 321: 127-133 (1986). (4)

· S.E. Jones, A.N. Anderson, J.N. Bradbury, A.J. Caffrey, J.S. Cohen, P.A.M. Gram, M. Leon, R.L. Maltrud, M.A. Paciotti, C.D. Van Siclen, and K.D. Watts, "Observation of Unexpected Density Effects in Muon-Catalyzed d-t Fusion," Physical Review Letters 56: 588-591 (1986). (5)

• Research discussed at the American Physical Society Four Corners meeting, 6-7 Oct 2006 (6)

• D3.00006 Construction of a Low-energy Single-wire Z-pinch Apparatus for Metal-catalyzed Fusion Studies http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778 (http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778) • B4.00001 Laboratory Nuclear Astrophysics or The universe as seen from underground. • B4.00002 Low energy accelerator for studying laboratory nuclear astrophysics. (7) (8)

• Solar Funnel Cooker invented by Dr. Jones (1990's), including plans to build your own, discussed here: http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm (http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm) . This paper explains how the same funnel can be used to make ice at night (with air temp about 50 F or less). Start with cardboard and foil cut to about 2’ X 4’ (0.6m X 1.2 m)… OR start with Aluminized windshield reflector and cut so length is just twice the width (photo below, putting oven-safe plastic bag over painted-black canning jar on circular rack). (9)

• Dr. Jones has given several hundreds of the aluminized-mylar Solar Funnel Cookers to families in developing countries in Haiti, Bolivia, Kenya, Turkey and Ecuador, with the most recent solar-cookers given to folks in Mali (2006, see photo below) and Mozambique (2007). More will go to help refugees who have fled from Iraq. Updates: http://solarcooking.org/saveheat.htm (http://solarcooking.org/saveheat.htm) and especially http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht (http://solarcooking.org/research/McGuire-Jones.mht) . The latter paper compares the solar cooker made with windshield-reflector (OK) with the cardboard-and-aluminum-foil cooker (better), and it discusses a simple box cooker for low-sun days using just FOUR charcoal briquettes (see photos and data-graph below)... (10)

Okay.
If it's cold fusion, it's gone. 10 is not a paper. The rest are meetings. Welcome to not reading the entire hting.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Okay.
If it's cold fusion, it's gone. 10 is not a paper. The rest are meetings. Welcome to not reading the entire hting.

So you are calling the prestigious University BYU a liar when they claim that Jones has over fifty "peer-reviewed publications"?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Peer Reviewed by quacks is..

(In any case, what does the fact they're prestigious have to do the argument? Nothing?)

[DavidJames]

So you are calling the prestigious University BYU a liar when they claim that Jones has over fifty "peer-reviewed publications"?
The only peer reviewed papers of his I care about are those related to his CT's about 9/11. Can you point those out in the BYU article please.

[Gravy]

That is not a FACT.Jerome, Jones has no peer-reviewed papers about 9/11, which is the topic at hand. Nor does any other truther, as you know. Here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones%27hypothesesbydavero) you can read physicist Dave Rogers' comments on why Jones' main paper would not pass peer review.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, Jones has no peer-reviewed papers about 9/11, which is the topic at hand. Nor does any other truther, as you know. Here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones%27hypothesesbydavero) you can read physicist Dave Rogers' comments on why Jones' main paper would not pass peer review.

Ohh, I know that fact.


I did have my "debunker" quotes on.;)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Peer Reviewed by quacks is..

(In any case, what does the fact they're prestigious have to do the argument? Nothing?)

Dr. Jone's papers on cold fusion were reviewed by quacks?
:boggled:


I suggest you review who reviewed those papers.

[beachnut]

I have been trying to find out what kind of qualifications Roberts has.
His logic at his websites seems to indicate he has no scientific experience. I have heard Roberts call Steven Jones science on 9-11 tha "worse science he has seen" strange that somebody with no scientific experience has such a different opinion than somebody like David Griscom who has vast experience (185 peer reviewed papers) Griscom says Jones work is very well done. So we have Roberts with no qualifications and Griscom wth great qualifications, who should we believe has a better understanding of the scientific method? As a matter of fact Jones has had many peer reviewed papers himself. Does Roberts? I can't find any.
You have discovered another idiot on 9/11 issues. Funny how so called experts in one field let their political bias make them liars on 9/11. Yes, your hero (or is that you) David Griscom is nuts like Jones on topics on 9/11. Does Griscom hates Bush so much he is willing to lie on 9/11? Why is Griscom supporting the lies of Jones and others on 9/11? You are asking the wrong people why your so called expert lies on 9/11. You need to ask him.

Roberts is able to research and use his own knowledge he gathered on 9/11 to make clear rational statements on the lies people publish on 9/11. Do you lack the knowledge and are you ignorant on 9/11? It is so easy to see the lies of 9/11 truth. Why do you believe people who present zero evidence to support their idea on 9/11?

Your new hero says -
does NOT contradict Dr. Griffin's compilation of evidence that they were brought down by controlled demolition.
But Dr. Griffin's work is all hearsay. Do you understand hearsay. Dr. Griffin is a fraud on 9/11, he sells his bogus books on 9/11 to make money off of dumb people. Are you dumb enough to buy into the lies generated from no evidence of 9/11 truth?

You my friend seem to be fooled easy by the extremely few expert who have given up rational thoughts on 9/11 to become 9/11 truth experts who make up lies about 9/11. Plus next time do not include experts who rant about politics in their papers when you want someone who is creditable.

To tell you the truth, I can get more pilots, engineers and scientist to back Roberts work than you can get to back Griscom's work.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

He was clear that he wasn't 100ft and Gravy was wrong about getting that info from him.

This bassackward strategy Gravy employs suggests that he gets to keep a claim unless his error is corrected. This is ridiculous. If his claim is refuted and he has no source, he should remove it from his paper.
Oh please ceramic bird, Cry me a river!
Got my credit card in hand.
Willing to donate $100 to Rodriguez' pocket (which is what Rodriguez' "charity" is anyway) if you can make him come here and prove that everything mark has wrote about him is a lie.he is a member here so i see no problem.
Pure and simple.
So what do u say red?

[Dave Rogers]

The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did.

He didn't say he didn't talk with him, he said he didn't consult him about the decision. Sounds like hair splitting? Then let's take an example.

Suppose David Ray Griffin joins JREF, and sends you a PM saying "Swing, I think your comments have merit, and I'm planning to join in the debate to support your point of view." You reply saying, "It's OK, I can handle it, but your contribution would be welcome." DRG then wades in and starts arguing your corner. One of us says, "Did Swing Dangler put you up to this?" DRG replies, "No, I made the decision to post here without consulting anyone, though I informed him I was planning to do so." Is he lying?

Now suppose, instead, he just says, "No, I made the decision to post here without consulting anyone," but leaves out the bit about telling you beforehand. Now is he lying?

Then suppose you post saying, "Actually, before he first posted I gave him my view that his conbtribution would be welcome". Have you just proved he was lying?

I'm sure you can find a way to answer "yes" to some of these questions, but an honest person probably wouldn't.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, go back and read the press release. Compare that to the article I linked to. There is no lie only updated information based upon the press release. Move on....

Swing, if you think it's honest to "update" a quote based on cherry-picking a subsequent press release, then you're morally bankrupt. And if you think it was simply Kevin Ryan incorporating more recent information as an "update", why didn't he incorporate the other information from the press release, that the entire conversation was about withdrawing firefighters from danger? He selectively and deliberately changed the quote to try to incriminate Silverstein, and you're no less aware of that than anyone else here.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=Dave Rogers;3266011]Swing, if you think it's honest to "update" a quote based on cherry-picking a subsequent press release, then you're morally bankrupt.
Dave you are one of the few members that I can respect based upon your comments and treatment of me personally and I thank you for that. Morally bankrupt? I'm sorry but I can only accept that as an ad hom attack.


And if you think it was simply Kevin Ryan incorporating more recent information as an "update", why didn't he incorporate the other information from the press release, that the entire conversation was about withdrawing firefighters from danger?
You do have a point with this. However, based upon FEMA, Hayden, etc there were no manual fire fighting operations going on so I suspect this is why Kevin did not include that information.

He selectively and deliberately changed the quote to try to incriminate Silverstein, and you're no less aware of that than anyone else here.
This is where we disagree of course. He changed the quote due to updated information from Silverstein's office.

He didn't say he didn't talk with him, he said he didn't consult him about the decision. Sounds like hair splitting?
They consulted Dave at least according to Silverstein on two separate occasions.
I will provide an elementary example as you did with me.

Dave you take your car to the mechanic and describe the problem. Terrible sounds are coming from the engine. The mechanic decides to fix the engine. He calls you back to describe the problem, how much it will cost, the time it will take, the warranty, etc. Then he asks if you would like the work to be completed or not. You gave permission and the mechanic made the decision.

But in your world, you take your car in tell the mechanic there is a terrible sound coming from the engine. Four hours later, you show up and their is a new engine, 4 new tires, a new exhaust system, and a $6000 bill that you are expected to pay. You gave nothing and the mechanic made the decision.

[Swing Dangler]

The flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the WTC planes were not recovered. Workers were advised to be on the lookout for them. Source: Mark's Paper.

Does this "fact" stand up to scrutiny? Only if you support the FBI's and NIST statements and call two firefighters liars.

Apparently the black boxes were found at the site. You can read the accont by firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi here. (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html)http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html
N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them.

A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB."Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

Mark Roberts is in a predicament. By stating the black boxes were not found via the statements of the FBI and NTSB he is accusing Mr. Bellone and Mr. De Masi of lying.
But why would two firefighters, heroes in most peoples eyes, lie about something as important as this?

I'm curious though as to why Mark would leave this important account out of his 9/11 Aircraft Parts and Contents Recovered in NYC .

Mark does do a great job of listing accounts of all of the trivial things that were found by people on the scene, including seat cushions, tickets, airplane parts (sorry no planers), etc, but fails to include the accounts of Bellone and De Masi. Why? Fallacy of Omission? Poor research? Or is it to support the official theory and the statements of Federal Agencies?

I will recant this comment if Mr. Bellone and Mr. De Masi have retracted their original story.

[RedIbis]

Swing,
The house does not like the odds that the list of errors you are amassing will be corrected by Mark.

In fact the house set the odds for just this example at a whopping 25-1. There's Stundiedollars to made here people. All Mark has to do is admit the error and change his paper. The house thinks otherwise.

[Dave Rogers]

Dave you are one of the few members that I can respect based upon your comments and treatment of me personally and I thank you for that. Morally bankrupt? I'm sorry but I can only accept that as an ad hom attack.

No, it's not an ad hominem. Ad hominem would be to say "You are morally bankrupt, therefore your views are not worth considering." What I'm saying is that I find your defense of what can only reasonably be interpreted as deliberate lying to be morally repugnant.

This is where we disagree of course. He changed the quote due to updated information from Silverstein's office.

Canyou really not see that changing the quote is lying? And you yourself just admitted that he was selective about what changes he made, so now your sole defense of Ryan is a comment on his motives which you yourself admit to be a guess. Not good enough.

Dave you take your car to the mechanic and describe the problem. Terrible sounds are coming from the engine. The mechanic decides to fix the engine. He calls you back to describe the problem, how much it will cost, the time it will take, the warranty, etc. Then he asks if you would like the work to be completed or not. You gave permission and the mechanic made the decision.

But in your world, you take your car in tell the mechanic there is a terrible sound coming from the engine. Four hours later, you show up and their is a new engine, 4 new tires, a new exhaust system, and a $6000 bill that you are expected to pay. You gave nothing and the mechanic made the decision.

A breathtaking non sequitur. The mechanic, in your example, doesn't have the authority to work on my car without me granting it. Are you suggesting that the Fire Commander on site at WTC7 didn't have the authority to order his men not to fight the fires unless Silverstein granted him that authority?

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

Swing,
The house does not like the odds that the list of errors you are amassing will be corrected by Mark.

In fact the house set the odds for just this example at a whopping 25-1. There's Stundiedollars to made here people. All Mark has to do is admit the error and change his paper. The house thinks otherwise.

Red, I don't expect anything to be corrected by Mark especially if a "truther" points it out.
Based upon the "new" Gravy video and all of these debunker papers, this whole JREF thing is turning into a pissing competition on who can be the best debunker while ignoring anything that contradicts their debunk.

BTW, what are Stundiedollars?

[RedIbis]

Red, I don't expect anything to be corrected by Mark especially if a "truther" point it out.
Based upon the "new" Gravy video and all of these debunker papers, this whole JREF thing is turning into a pissing competition on who can be the best debunker while ignoring anything that contradicts their debunk.

BTW, what are Stundiedollars?

A fictitious currency that his helpful in designating the extreme unlikeliness that Mark will address these legitimate criticisms.

Fictitious as they are, it might not be long before they have greater value than our own deflating currency.

[Swing Dangler]

A breathtaking non sequitur. The mechanic, in your example, doesn't have the authority to work on my car without me granting it. Are you suggesting that the Fire Commander on site at WTC7 didn't have the authority to order his men not to fight the fires unless Silverstein granted him that authority?
Dave

Dave, there were no firefighting operations. See FEMA and Hayden's comments. On the other hand if it were giving permission to demolish the building, then it makes complete sense just as in the example I linked to a page or two ago where firefighters consulted with the buildings owner before deciding to have the building demolished.

RedIbis BTW, what are Stundiedollars?
A fictitious currency that his helpful in designating the extreme unlikeliness that Mark will address these legitimate criticisms.

Fictitious as they are, it might not be long before they have greater value than our own deflating currency.
Great! More fiat currency. Does the Bank of Stundie have a plunge protection team to keep its system from descending into a great depression? ;)

[TimB1]

.

Does this "fact" stand up to scrutiny? Only if you support the FBI's and NIST statements and call two firefighters liars.

Apparently the black boxes were found at the site. You can read the accont by firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi here.

Mark Roberts is in a predicament. By stating the black boxes were not found via the statements of the FBI and NTSB he is accusing Mr. Bellone and Mr. De Masi of lying.
But why would two firefighters, heroes in most peoples eyes, lie about something as important as this?



Firstly, Mr Roberts does deal with this claim, here:

htt p://w ww.loosechangeguide.com/lcg5.html (take out spaces)

Secondly, Bellone is described as a volunteer at Ground Zero, not a firefighter, who was later 'charged with grand larceny, criminal impersonation and possession of stolen property, but the charges were later dropped after Bellone returned the items.':

htt p:// preview.tinyurl.com/345ata (take out spaces)

I'm sure his help was much appreciated at GZ, but being a volunteer doesn't make your subsequent claims unquestionable gospel truth.

[funk de fino]

Swing, I cannot believe you brought up Bellone before doing your homework

Is he a firefighter like you have claimed? No arguing about semantics on this one either please

Who corroborates his story and why did it appear in 2004?

Think about it. These two men found three of the four blackboxes from the huge clean up site that hundreds were poring over? 75% of the boxes found by these two men and no-one else?

Every swing and miss you make only drags you further down the road to being a liar to try and defend your predjudices. You have been hoodwinked again.

[funk de fino]

Apparently Bellone only saw one of the possible boxes

There was the one that I saw, and two others were recovered in different locations - but I wasn’t there for the other two,” Bellone said. He said the FBI agents left with the boxes.


http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html

de Masi drove a vehicle for the agents he claimed found the boxes

[Belz...]

Red, I don't expect anything to be corrected by Mark especially if a "truther" points it out.

Probably not for the reasons you think.

[funk de fino]

Dave, there were no firefighting operations. See FEMA and Hayden's comments.

Perhaps not but there were firefighters and first responders carrying out operations in the vicinity of the building?

Or do you deny this?

[16.5]

Today, 07:54 AM #831
Swing Dangler
“Ladies and gentlemen....the next error...”

“Mark does do a great job of listing accounts of all of the trivial things that were found by people on the scene, including seat cushions, tickets, airplane parts (sorry no planers), etc, but fails to include the accounts of Bellone and De Masi. Why? Fallacy of Omission? Poor research?”

Today, 08:48 AM #837 Lopakhin

“Firstly, Mr Roberts does deal with this claim, here:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg5.html

I guess 54 minutes is not a record for Swing’s lies to be exposed, is it?

Anyway, in light of RedIbis wager, it appears that Swing owes a bunch of Stundiebucks to someone.

[Gravy]

Swing, I cannot believe you brought up Bellone before doing your homework

Is he a firefighter like you have claimed? No arguing about semantics on this one either pleaseBellone was not a firefighter, nor was he an honorary firefighter as he claimed. He is a liar and a thief. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2788173&postcount=8

[Gravy]

Canyou really not see that changing the quote is lying? Keep in mind that Ryan is referring only to Silverstein's 2002 quote. He says that quote, which Ryan changed from "they made that decision" to "the fire commander and I made that decision" is an admission of guilt on Silverstein's part. How much more blatant does lying have to be for a conspiracist to recognize it?

I have absolutely no idea why people still respond to a troll like Swing Dangler. He's not wrong by accident. He gets nothing right because he wants to get nothing right. He's here for attention only.

[Hyperviolet]

Just popping my head in this thread.

What's the error count at?
Still at zero?

Or has one been found yet?

[RedIbis]

Bellone was not a firefighter, nor was he an honorary firefighter as he claimed. He is a liar and a thief. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2788173&postcount=8

I see that Bellone is not a reliable source, but how about DeMasi? Are you calling him a liar?

[16.5]

I have absolutely no idea why people still respond to a troll like Swing Dangler. He's not wrong by accident. He gets nothing right because he wants to get nothing right. He's here for attention only.

Yeah, but he is like a car crash, you can't keep your eyes off of him. Seriously.

On the other hand, he single handedly advances the "Debunker" movement every time he posts! Can you imagine a "fence sitter" reading his posts: "Cripes, is this guy STILL trying to justify Ryan's lie?"

*truth mode on:

Swing is disinfo!

*truth mode off

[DavidJames]

I see that Bellone is not a reliable source, but how about DeMasi? Are you calling him a liar?You seem to accept every CT claim as fact and require it be debunked before you discard it?

Is there some point at which you will demand a CT claim be substantiated before accepting it? It seems a reasonable person, after seeing such claims destroyed one after the other would get the hint. Am I asking to much?

[RedIbis]

You seem to accept every CT claim as fact and require it be debunked before you discard it?

Is there some point at which you will demand a CT claim be substantiated before accepting it? It seems a reasonable person, after seeing such claims destroyed one after the other would get the hint. Am I asking to much?

I was being sincere with my questions and my observations that Bellone's claims can be construed as specious considering his lack of credibility.

I'm asking if Gravy is discrediting DeMasi, as well, and if not, should his claim that the boxes were found be taken seriously. If not, why not?

[DavidJames]

I was being sincere with my questions and my observations that Bellone's claims can be construed as specious considering his lack of credibility.I am not doubting your sincerity...
I'm asking if Gravy is discrediting DeMasi, as well, and if not, should his claim that the boxes were found be taken seriously. If not, why not?I know what you're asking which is why I made my post. I guess the answer to my question is no, at no point will you: "demand a CT claim be substantiated before accepting it?"

Thanks for your honesty.

[Belz...]

I see that Bellone is not a reliable source, but how about DeMasi? Are you calling him a liar?

"Well, you're right, I was wrong about this claim but - HEY! look over there!"

[RedIbis]

I guess the answer to my question is no, at no point will you: "demand a CT claim be substantiated before accepting it?"

Thanks for your honesty.

Incorrect. If someone makes a claim, I am always curious how it is or is not validated.

FTR, I am not very much persuaded in space beams, no planes or pods. Likewise, I have never been very much impressed by pancakes, global progressive collapse and comprehensive incompetence.

Thanks for your civility.

[Swing Dangler]

Today, 07:54 AM #831
“Firstly, Mr Roberts does deal with this claim, here:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg5.html
I guess 54 minutes is not a record for Swing’s lies to be exposed, is it?
So now I have to cross reference the nonsense to get to the facts?
Anyway, in light of RedIbis wager, it appears that Swing owes a bunch of Stundiebucks to someone.
Hmm Demasi a liar too?

Try the quote button for a change. First this: Think about it. These two men found three of the four blackboxes from the huge clean up site that hundreds were poring over? 75% of the boxes found by these two men and no-one else?
And to imagine a single terrorist passport being found by one person. Not so implausible in that light is it?

So you accept this statement from Gravy in LC guide: I believe evidence. No evidence has been presented that the boxes were recovered.
No boys and girls this is selective acceptance of evidence. This is an example of Mark saying, well I will accept this eyewitness testimony and statements regarding (insert topic here) but in this case I will only believe evidence. Can you say double standard? I thought you could!

This site (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=vz5&q=FBI+cover+up+of+evidence&btnG=Search) and this site (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=dQ6&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=FBI+withholds+evidence&spell=1)will explain why I don't necessarily accept as truth everything from the FBI like many of you do.

Is DeMasi a liar and fraud also? Nobody ever got around to answering that question.

Gravy-He's here for attention only. Really? I'm here for attention? LOL. I'm anonymous your not. You plaster your face on a web banner, I don't. Some Papers, Videos, and Appearances by Me. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someonlinepapersandvideosbyme)..
Who is the attention seeker?

[Pookster]

And to imagine a single terrorist passport being found by one person. Not so implausible in that light is it?

One person among the many that were around the towers finding one of the passports? Not really implausible. Seems quite plausible. Now try to tell me that same person found 75% of the terrorists passports, I'd agree that it's implausible.

[DavidJames]

Incorrect. If someone makes a claim, I am always curious how it is or is not validated.Fair enough. I guess I never see the parts where you question the CT's. I only see that parts where you come here to have them debunked.

Can you point me to some places where you attempt to validate the CT claims?

[Pookster]

Is DeMasi a liar and fraud also? Nobody ever got around to answering that question.

False dilemma. He could just be mistaken. You should be quite familiar with that option by now.

[Pookster]

Really? I'm here for attention? LOL. I'm anonymous your not. You plaster your face on a web banner, I don't. Some Papers, Videos, and ...

Who is the attention seeker?

He said "attention only". Nice quote mining, or did your reading comprehension fail you? Gravy has made numerous contributions to understanding and debunking claims made by the Truth Movement and such. So far, I don't see much of anything provided by you except debunked claims and false accusations.

[16.5]

"Hmm Demasi a liar too?"

Hey, Champ, you said that Gravy did not address it, and you lied. Why you moving the goalposts? C'mon Swing, at least have the guts to admit you were wrong. C'mon Swing:

"yeah, i admit it, I was wrong when i said Gravy ignored it. My bad."

"Try the quote button for a change."

Now Swing, why the heck would I want to make your life easier. However, admit you lied, and I will do so.

[Lurker]

Demasi claims that he rode an ATV around the site with 3 FBI agents and they came across three of the four black boxes in the rubble. Now, does this sound feasible to anyone?

The rubble pile is many stories high. Millions of pounds, millions of cubic feet of rubble. Yet without digging, Demasi says the drove around and found three black boxes. Not one, not two, but three! What are the odds that one person would find three of the four while on an ATV and amongst the hundreds of searchers? Long odds indeed.

Odd that Demasi's claim did not come out til 2003 but I suppose he could have thought the FBI would release the info when it was declassified.


Bellone said he and DeMasi were not the only 9-11 rescue workers to see the “black boxes.” He said there were several other witnesses and said he knows they have been silenced by federal agents.

“I know two or three others saw what went down, but they are not talking,” said Bellone. “They got to those guys after they talked to me. The only reason I can figure they are trying to hide the truth is that the government knows it screwed up, and the recorders would prove it.”

Asked to give names of the other witnesses, he said he wouldn’t break a fellow worker’s confidence by revealing his identity.

How convenient. Possible criminal activity by the govt and Bellone thinks it is more important to not betray fellow workers' confidence. Sure. Someone post that "Stand Up" picture witht eh guy sitting down again cause it is so appropriate.

[RedIbis]

Fair enough. I guess I never see the parts where you question the CT's. I only see that parts where you come here to have them debunked.

Can you point me to some places where you attempt to validate the CT claims?


I don't validate "CT claims." I look for validation of the official story and find it sorely lacking.

[Arus808]

I don't validate "CT claims."
No, that is WHAT you are doing.


I look for validation of the official story and find it sorely lacking.

TO YOU.

Fortunately, the real explanation (its NOT AN OFFICIAL STORY!) of what happened IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. That is what we call validation.

[johnny karate]

I don't validate "CT claims."

Clearly. You just accept them at face value. And then when you have the truth shoved down your throat, you move on like nothing happened.

[DGM]

Swing,
The house does not like the odds that the list of errors you are amassing will be corrected by Mark.

In fact the house set the odds for just this example at a whopping 25-1. There's Stundiedollars to made here people. All Mark has to do is admit the error and change his paper. The house thinks otherwise.
Why would you make this comment?

A couple of weeks ago you pointed out an error that Mark had made. Did he not acknowledge this and make the correction?

Why would you imply that he does not address questions concerning the accuracy of his work? You know this is not true.

This statement does not hold well for your integrity and I hope you can refrain from this in the future.

[Swing Dangler]

Hey, Champ, you said that Gravy did not address it, and you lied. Why you moving the goalposts? C'mon Swing, at least have the guts to admit you were wrong. C'mon Swing:
Now Swing, why the heck would I want to make your life easier. However, admit you lied, and I will do so.

Lets check your facts now: here is my comment:
Mark does do a great job of listing accounts of all of the trivial things that were found by people on the scene, including seat cushions, tickets, airplane parts (sorry no planers), etc, but fails to include the accounts of Bellone and De Masi. Why?

Now if you would 16.5, show me where he addresses this particular issue here: 9/11 Aircraft Parts and Contents Recovered in NYC (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/aircraftpartsnyc911). This is the only mention of the black boxes within this paper: The flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the WTC planes were not recovered. Workers were advised to be on the lookout for them.


If you can not show me where he addresses the issue, you can recant your accusation calling me a liar or I can ignore you.

And why your contemplating that, have you determined if Demasi a liar or not?

[Swing Dangler]

False dilemma. He could just be mistaken. You should be quite familiar with that option by now.

Has he retracted his statement of what he saw? I didn't think so.

[Swing Dangler]

The source: No evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columns (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/next%3Adidwtc7collapseintoa%22tidypile%3F%22)

As a casual reader I would expect to read about no evidence on exterior columns as the title suggests. The title suggests the entire WTC complex, however, the evidence presented is from WTC 7 only.
This title is of course very very deceptive. Mark's next sentence: Contrary to some CT claims, the outer columns of WTC 7 that are visible in debris photos do not show signs of being sheared by explosives.

So in this regards the title of the page does not match the evidence presented by Mark: 3 grainy pictures from WTC 7 only. The pictures are not sourced and appear to have been manipulated wtih words inserted into the picture. The link describing the construction process is a dead link.

Finally, the only way to factually make the statement No evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columnsis to chemically test the debris for evidence of explosives.

[DGM]

Swing:
Why would the USG hide the boxes if they found them? Couldn't they just fake the results to take the heat off them?

You really need to start thinking a little more logically, your not doing so well.

[16.5]

"If you can not show me where he addresses the issue, you can recant your accusation calling me a liar or I can ignore you."

Well I sure can, in fact there was a link to it way up there ^^^

Oh wait, I get it! You are telling us that what you meant was That “Gravy did not address the issue, except where he addressed the issue!”

Kinda like: “the buildings were not subject to massive smoke and fires except where they were subject to massive smoke and fires!” Remember that gem, Swing, from this very thread!

As for “have you determined if Demasi a liar or not.” Have I? No I have not. I do, however, find his account extremely dubious. But you, I assume, do not. As such, why are sitting there! Get up, get out, track this man down. Do it, do it right now. Issue a FOIA request. Contact those lawyers who gave the speeches at the NIST update. Do something!

God speed!

Oh wait, it is raining. Too bad.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing:
Why would the USG hide the boxes if they found them? Couldn't they just fake the results to take the heat off them?

You really need to start thinking a little more logically, your not doing so well.

At this point, the title of the thread is The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread. I'm not going to speculate on factors that motivate Federal officials to make certain decisions in an attempt to have the thread derailed.

If you care to start a new thread, I would be happy to visit.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=16.5;3267128]"If you can not show me where he addresses the issue, you can recant your accusation calling me a liar or I can ignore you."

Well I sure can, in fact there was a link to it way up there ^^^
Nice dodge. It wasn't addressed in the paper I'm critiquing now.

Oh wait, I get it! You are telling us that what you meant was That “Gravy did not address the issue, except where he addressed the issue!”

Kinda like: “the buildings were not subject to massive smoke and fires except where they were subject to massive smoke and fires!” Remember that gem, Swing, from this very thread!

As for “have you determined if Demasi a liar or not.” Have I? No I have not. I do, however, find his account extremely dubious.


So you do not take the man's word for it, correct? Then shouldn't you be the one to track him down?

Welcome to ignore.

[Pookster]

Has he retracted his statement of what he saw? I didn't think so.

Can you quote Nicholas DeMasi's statement in 2004? I've not seen it, just references to a book in 2003.

If he did actually say something in 2004, I suspect he hasn't retracted it, but how does that change your false dilemma? He still could be mistaken. His story certainly stretches credulity. I mean, him finding three of the four boxes in that debris pile? It's an extraordinary claim that going to take some extraordinary substantiation and evidence to rule out that he's not mistaken.

[16.5]

Swing Sez: "So you do not take the man's word for it, correct? Then shouldn't you be the one to track him down?"

Nope. But you aren't gonna do anything either, now are you?

"Welcome to ignore."

Giggle! The Truth movement at its finest!

[Pookster]

Swing Sez: "So you do not take the man's word for it, correct? Then shouldn't you be the one to track him down?"

Nope. But you aren't gonna do anything either, now are you?

"Welcome to ignore."

Giggle! The Truth movement at its finest!

I wonder if he said he saw body of King Kong in the debris if he would just assume the man is correct. I mean, it is the man's word ... and stuff.

[johnny karate]

Welcome to ignore.

He said the same thing to evidence and critical thinking.

[LashL]

The source: No evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columns (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/next%3Adidwtc7collapseintoa%22tidypile%3F%22)

As a casual reader I would expect to read about no evidence on exterior columns as the title suggests. The title suggests the entire WTC complex, however, the evidence presented is from WTC 7 only.
This title is of course very very deceptive.


How did you manage to miss the fact that the paper you've cited is called

World Trade Center Building 7
and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"



And how did you manage to miss the fact that the link in the index to that particular page is titled:

No evidence of explosives use on WTC 7 exterior columns (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/next%3Adidwtc7collapseintoa%22tidypile%3F%22)


:rolleyes:

[Pookster]

How did you manage to miss the fact that the paper you've cited is called

World Trade Center Building 7
and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"



And how did you manage to miss the fact that the link in the index to that particular page is titled:

No evidence of explosives use on WTC 7 exterior columns (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/next%3Adidwtc7collapseintoa%22tidypile%3F%22)


:rolleyes:


I think he needs to be less "casual" in his reading.

[johnny karate]

Swingie baby, you're just god awful at this.

[16.5]

How did you manage to miss the fact that the paper you've cited is called

World Trade Center Building 7
and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"



And how did you manage to miss the fact that the link in the index to that particular page is titled:

No evidence of explosives use on WTC 7 exterior columns (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/next%3Adidwtc7collapseintoa%22tidypile%3F%22)


:rolleyes:


hey I can add another one:

“Gravy did not address the issue, except where he addressed the issue!”

“The buildings were not subject to massive smoke and fires except where they were subject to massive smoke and fires!”

"Gravy did not say he was talking about WTC7 except where he said he was talking about WTC7 (i.e. the title, the index, and the first line of the article itself.)"

I swear this guy is disinfo! Nobody can be THIS bad!

[Swing Dangler]

Can you quote Nicholas DeMasi's statement in 2004? I've not seen it, just references to a book in 2003.

If he did actually say something in 2004, I suspect he hasn't retracted it, but how does that change your false dilemma? He still could be mistaken. His story certainly stretches credulity. I mean, him finding three of the four boxes in that debris pile? It's an extraordinary claim that going to take some extraordinary substantiation and evidence to rule out that he's not mistaken.

I accept your false dilemma point as he could be mistaken.

What factual reason can you offer to support the contention that he is lying or mistaken?

And remember, I can use that same stretch of credulity argument in reference to a hijacker's paper passport. ie. which is stretches the credulity more?
Black box versus paper passport?

[johnny karate]

I accept your false dilemma point as he could be mistaken.

What factual reason can you offer to support the contention that he is lying or mistaken?

How about the fact that his claim is unsubstantiated?

And remember, I can use that same stretch of credulity argument in reference to a hijacker's paper passport. ie. which is stretches the credulity more?
Black box versus paper passport?

And it was pointed out to you that this is a false analogy. It's the difference between one person finding 75% of the black boxes, and a single passport being found at all. There is no valid comparison.

[Swing Dangler]

How did you manage to miss the fact that the paper you've cited is called

World Trade Center Building 7
and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"



And how did you manage to miss the fact that the link in the index to that particular page is titled:

No evidence of explosives use on WTC 7 exterior columns (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/next%3Adidwtc7collapseintoa%22tidypile%3F%22)


:rolleyes:


I didn't miss that fact at all of course.

Why? Because I also find statements like this within the paper:
There is anecdotal evidence of molten metal in the basements of WTC buildings 1, 2, 6, and perhaps 7 in the days and weeks after 9/11.
or
A commonly repeated 9/11 conspiracy theory is that an incendiary, thermite or thermate, rather than an explosive, was used to cut the huge steel columns, causing the WTC buildings to collapse....
For now, perhaps we should leave the final word on this issue to Brent Blanchard of Protec, from his paper A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint:


Not exactly the focus on WTC 7 alone, now is it, hence my critique of the title of the page in question. Next?

[Pookster]

What factual reason can you offer to support the contention that he is lying or mistaken?

I haven't seen the 2004 quote you're referring to yet. Can you quote and provide a reference to it?

And remember, I can use that same stretch of credulity argument in reference to a hijacker's paper passport. ie. which is stretches the credulity more?
Black box versus paper passport?

Sure you could, and I'd agree. If I said one person out of hundreds found 75% of the terrorists' passports, it'd definitely be a major stretch of credulity too. One person finding one black box would be quite plausible though. But 75% of them? In that debris pile? Pfffft. He's gonna have to substantiate that somehow. But you haven't provided his quote yet from 2004. I could be arguing with a strawman.

[16.5]

Well, It has been fun and all. It has also been an utter disaster for the Twoofers. I just thought I’d remind the Truth movement (at least the ones who have not put me on ignore) of the OP:

“What I would like to see is independent confirmation of an error that Mark Roberts has made. That is, I want to see just exactly where he's gone wrong. It's very simple, really; just say "Mark Roberts said X (link), but the truth is actually Y(link)."

It seems like we’ve gotten away from that. For example, what I had expected was when somebody posted a Gravy statement like:

“No evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columns.”

What I expected was:

“Here is evidence of the use of explosives on WTC exterior columns.”

Did we get anything remotely like that in this thread? I’ll let you be the judge.

[Pookster]

I didn't miss that fact at all of course.

Why? Because I also find statements like this within the paper:

or


Not exactly the focus on WTC 7 alone, now is it, hence my critique of the title of the page in question. Next?

Given that the Towers played a role in the collapse of WTC 7, why would you think the focus couldn't include them at times in the paper when they apply to a discussion of WTC 7?

You need to back away from the keyboard and take a break. Seriously. This kind of argument is truly pathetic.

Edited to add: Just how is this a "factual" error anyways? Please, do explain.

[lisabob2]

Are you capable of anything besides giving a textbook example of argumentum ad verecundiam? Please indicate specifically what Steven Jones gets right or what Mark Roberts gets wrong. Has Griscom written anything about 9/11 (something scientific, preferably) or is he for name-dropping purposes only?
I am checking out qualifications of the people who make statements. I also check out what they put out there. In my opinion somebody who has experience and has shown to follow proper scientific methods is more trusting that somebody who makes personal attacks instead of addressing the issues. Can anybody reasonably trust somebody's opinion on the scientific method when they have no qualifications? Jones has repeatedly said official investigations have not followed proper scientific method. Now James Quintiere from nist says nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" which confirms Jones. Quintiere wants new independent investigation. So Jones & Quintiere agree on nist investigation being poor.

[twinstead]

I am checking out qualifications of the people who make statements. I also check out what they put out there. In my opinion somebody who has experience and has shown to follow proper scientific methods is more trusting that somebody who makes personal attacks instead of addressing the issues. Can anybody reasonably trust somebody's opinion on the scientific method when they have no qualifications? Jones has repeatedly said official investigations have not followed proper scientific method. Now James Quintiere from nist says nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" which confirms Jones. Quintiere wants new independent investigation. So Jones & Quintiere agree on nist investigation being poor.

But, Jones and Quintiere want a new investigation for diametrically opposed reasons. Quintiere does NOT suspect the towers were CD, and in fact accuses NIST of being too conservative; he would certainly agree however with their premise.

Jones is a throughly discredited biased pseudo-investigator who thinks the WTC was brought down by thermite and that NIST is lying.

You realize that if you want to tie in Quintiere with Jones this would require 2 separate investigations, right? Quintiere's issues with NIST in no way, shape, or form lend any credence to Jones' 'research'.

[lisabob2]

So you can name some errors Mark has made?

-Gumboot
In Roberts website 911myths there are numerous illogicall arguments used. The biggest & easiest one to see is the use of building collapses he uses. He uses buildings that collapsed during construction phases as comparision, which makes no sense. Roberts calls Jones' science the "worse he has seen" but David Griscom calls it well done. Griscom has over 185 peer reviewed papers. James Quintiere from Nist says nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" while Roberts has been calling nist investigation complete & very scientific, which according to Quintiere is completly wrong.
Having read much of nist report I don't see how any reasonable person could miss the problems with it. I have no qualifications to speak of, so I have read both sides of issues of 9-11. I also have been checking out the qualifications of both sides. Apart from the few engineers like Bazant, Greening, & few others I don't find people listing their qualifications like the truth movement especially websites like ae911truth.org or journalof911studies.com . Journal actually has some scientific debate between opposing sides, which is refreshing after seeing all the personal attacks at other sites, especially the "debunkers" who seem to use it as their main argument.

[RedIbis]

Since NIST has given its recent conference call, updating the timetable for its report on WTC 7, Mark Roberts should revise the following:

From Roberts' paper (http://http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/diddieselfuelforwtc7%E2%80%99semergencygenerator): Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?


Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?

Short answer: we don’t know. The final NIST WTC 7 report should shed more light on this issue, which is an important one.

Short answer: yes we do, and Shyam Sunder states that the fires were not caused by fuel on the premises.

19:00 mark at http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~nist/asx/nist-wtc-121807.asx

The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by “normal bldg fires”

“not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines”

“or from fuel fires due to fuel that was in the D(?) tanks that was in the bldg.”

[lisabob2]

What does Mark Roberts get wrong? Please explain in detail.
Roberts calls the nist report scientific & complete. According to nist's own James Quintiere the nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" Quintiere wants new independent investigation. So Roberts trusting of a unscientific investigation which got answers by "blocking search for answers" is a big issue. Having read most of nist report I can see many issues that raises questions. So without a proper investigation almost all of Roberts assertions are without any backing. After a proper investigation than we can have answers. Or at least have reasonable theories, backed by scientific answers.

[SDC]

In Roberts website 911myths there are numerous illogicall arguments used. The biggest & easiest one to see is the use of building collapses he uses. He uses buildings that collapsed during construction phases as comparision, which makes no sense. Roberts calls Jones' science the "worse he has seen" but David Griscom calls it well done. Griscom has over 185 peer reviewed papers. James Quintiere from Nist says nist investigation was "blocked from seeking answers" while Roberts has been calling nist investigation complete & very scientific, which according to Quintiere is completly wrong.
Having read much of nist report I don't see how any reasonable person could miss the problems with it. I have no qualifications to speak of, so I have read both sides of issues of 9-11. I also have been checking out the qualifications of both sides. Apart from the few engineers like Bazant, Greening, & few others I don't find people listing their qualifications like the truth movement especially websites like ae911truth.org or journalof911studies.com . Journal actually has some scientific debate between opposing sides, which is refreshing after seeing all the personal attacks at other sites, especially the "debunkers" who seem to use it as their main argument.

I'm sorry to say it, but this is simply silly. As you have been told, Quintiere doesn't agree with Jones. I suspect you are not active in the world of scholarship; well, publications are nice, but they have to be in the right field. (I have a PhD and numerous publications in different fields than engineering or physics and am not such a fool as to suggest I have technical qualifications.) "Bazant, Greening and few others" include the people who worked with NIST, or Pop Mech, who are well qualified and active in the relevant fields.

I suspect you regard as "personal attacks" as meaning anyone whose statements you don't like. It's best to complain after you've been attacked, by the way, not in advance. That's bad form.

Where have you been all these years, by the way? Have you used the search function on this site? Followed all the discussions, conversations, and arguments, touching on an enormous range of related topics? (Also cats, but never mind that.)

[lisabob2]

Mark Roberts (aka Gravy) has at least one qualification that I can vouch for: he is not a moron.

Alas, about Jones and Griscom I can't say the same.
Mark Roberts is not a moron. But what qualifications does he has that would give his opinion more weight than somebody who has 185 peer reviewed papers and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist? Are you calling David Griscom & Steven Jones morons? You see that entirely avoids the issues and is just a personal attack which has no use. Anybody who thinks nist investigation was scientific is completly wrong, according to James Quintiere and many other Scientist. Roberts uses Nist report quite a bit. So useing a unscientific investigation he attacks other real scientists who say that we need a real scientific investigation. Nist's own James Quintiere says new independent investigation is needed. Which is exactly the point, no scientific investigation has been done yet. But Roberts has been using nist report as his main source of info.
So who is being smarter here? The scientist who say we need a real investigation or the Person who has been using unscientific investigations to attack people who are more educated & more quallified than him?

[AZCat]

Mark Roberts is not a moron. But what qualifications does he has that would give his opinion more weight than somebody who has 185 peer reviewed papers and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist? Are you calling David Griscom & Steven Jones morons?
Yes, I am. Education and peer-reviewed papers cannot prevent someone from being stupid.

You see that entirely avoids the issues and is just a personal attack which has no use. Anybody who thinks nist investigation was scientific is completly wrong, according to James Quintiere and many other Scientist.
You are taking Quintiere out of context, as others have already pointed out. Anybody who claims the NIST investigation wasn't scientific either hasn't read it or is a moron.

Roberts uses Nist report quite a bit. So useing a unscientific investigation he attacks other real scientists who say that we need a real scientific investigation. Nist's own James Quintiere says new independent investigation is needed. Which is exactly the point, no scientific investigation has been done yet. But Roberts has been using nist report as his main source of info.
So who is being smarter here? The scientist who say we need a real investigation or the Person who has been using unscientific investigations to attack people who are more educated & more quallified than him?
Your argument is predicated on the assumption that the NIST investigation was not actually a scientific investigation. This is incorrect. Because it was a scientific investigation (according to anybody who is not a moron), Mark Roberts is justified in using it as evidence in his arguments.

[16.5]

Lisabob:

"Are you calling David Griscom & Steven Jones morons?"

Jones? Yes, absolutely. Ever read his Jesus came to America article?

Now that being said, please allow me to briefly direct your attention to the posting guidelines. You have seven posts, all saying virtually the same thing. That is known as spamming. Please stop it. Thank you.

[johnny karate]

Mark Roberts is not a moron. But what qualifications does he has that would give his opinion more weight than somebody who has 185 peer reviewed papers and is one of the worlds most sourced scientist? Are you calling David Griscom & Steven Jones morons? You see that entirely avoids the issues and is just a personal attack which has no use. Anybody who thinks nist investigation was scientific is completly wrong, according to James Quintiere and many other Scientist. Roberts uses Nist report quite a bit. So useing a unscientific investigation he attacks other real scientists who say that we need a real scientific investigation. Nist's own James Quintiere says new independent investigation is needed. Which is exactly the point, no scientific investigation has been done yet. But Roberts has been using nist report as his main source of info.
So who is being smarter here? The scientist who say we need a real investigation or the Person who has been using unscientific investigations to attack people who are more educated & more quallified than him?

Gravy doesn't need qualifications in order for his papers to be credible. Why? Because despite what you are alleging, his papers do not consist of investigating, conjecture, or theory. His papers are merely a collection of data culled from other sources. He is not offering opinion, he is offering a record of events.

And please, please stop citing Dr. Quintiere as someone who thinks the NIST report is flawed. He does not. Dr. Quintiere is a fire safety specialist. He feels that NIST was remiss in addressing certain fire safety issues. And nothing more. He agrees with their conclusions, and overall agrees with their methodology. I'm sure you find this piece of information new and amazing, but it has already been addressed here ad nauseum. Welcome to six months ago.

If you want to establish any credibility on this forum, I recommend you start thinking for yourself instead of just parroting something you read on a conspiracy website.

Tell us specifically what you think is wrong with the NIST report and we will address that, but to write off a very technical 10,000 page report that you clearly haven't read and probably wouldn't understand anyway, is very foolish and immature.

[lisabob2]

I'm sorry to say it, but this is simply silly. As you have been told, Quintiere doesn't agree with Jones. I suspect you are not active in the world of scholarship; well, publications are nice, but they have to be in the right field. (I have a PhD and numerous publications in different fields than engineering or physics and am not such a fool as to suggest I have technical qualifications.) "Bazant, Greening and few others" include the people who worked with NIST, or Pop Mech, who are well qualified and active in the relevant fields.

I suspect you regard as "personal attacks" as meaning anyone whose statements you don't like. It's best to complain after you've been attacked, by the way, not in advance. That's bad form.

Where have you been all these years, by the way? Have you used the search function on this site? Followed all the discussions, conversations, and arguments, touching on an enormous range of related topics? (Also cats, but never mind that.)
Quintiere does agree on the main issue with Jones, a new scientific investigation is needed. Quintiere has said this. Jones Has said this. Jones has all along pointed out the unscientific methods that were used. Quintiere supports this. Quintiere does not believe explosives were used but that isn't the point. Without a real scientific investigation no theory now is backed by facts & evidence. Quintiere has pointed out that they were blocked from seeking answers during nist investigation.
I regard attacking the person instead of discusing the issues as personal attacks. I do not mind being proven wrong, or right for that matter. I have gone pass the stage in life when I thought I was always right and anybody who disagreed with me was wrong.
I find discussing issues, especially debateing them interesting & a good way to learn, everybody can teach you something, just need to have a open mind

[Arus808]

Quintiere does agree on the main issue with Jones, a new scientific investigation is needed.


AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING!

HOwever its FOR VERY DIFFERENT REASONS!


do you put your hands over your eyes, where it is EXPLAINED why QUINTIERE wants a new investigation?

[lisabob2]

Yes, I am. Education and peer-reviewed papers cannot prevent someone from being stupid.


You are taking Quintiere out of context, as others have already pointed out. Anybody who claims the NIST investigation wasn't scientific either hasn't read it or is a moron.


Your argument is predicated on the assumption that the NIST investigation was not actually a scientific investigation. This is incorrect. Because it was a scientific investigation (according to anybody who is not a moron), Mark Roberts is justified in using it as evidence in his arguments.
Quintiere has said investigation was blocked from seeking answers. And Quintiere says new independent investigation needs to happen. What is taken out of context?
How can nist investigation be scientific when it was block from seeking answers? Ignoring evidence & facts is not scientific. Again calling people names because they disagree with you is avoiding issues. Check out journalof911studies.com and read the scientific debate between Greening & Ross. no name calling, all about the numbers & mathamatical equations. Thats how scientist debate, thats how issues are handled.

[Arus808]

Quintiere has said investigation was blocked from seeking answers. And Quintiere says new independent investigation needs to happen. What is taken out of context?

not for the REASONS you think he wants a new investigation and why he belivees it was blocked (they weren't blocked by the way, Quintierre has his own agenda as to why he wants a new investigation, and that was DEALT with in the thread about him - use the search function to find it)

[lisabob2]

Gravy doesn't need qualifications in order for his papers to be credible. Why? Because despite what you are alleging, his papers do not consist of investigating, conjecture, or theory. His papers are merely a collection of data culled from other sources. He is not offering opinion, he is offering a record of events.

And please, please stop citing Dr. Quintiere as someone who thinks the NIST report is flawed. He does not. Dr. Quintiere is a fire safety specialist. He feels that NIST was remiss in addressing certain fire safety issues. And nothing more. He agrees with their conclusions, and overall agrees with their methodology. I'm sure you find this piece of information new and amazing, but it has already been addressed here ad nauseum. Welcome to six months ago.

If you want to establish any credibility on this forum, I recommend you start thinking for yourself instead of just parroting something you read on a conspiracy website.

Tell us specifically what you think is wrong with the NIST report and we will address that, but to write off a very technical 10,000 page report that you clearly haven't read and probably wouldn't understand anyway, is very foolish and immature.
I posted once and I have responded to replys of my post. Isn't that what these posts are for? I did not read Jones article about Jesus. What does that prove him a moron? I have just been reading up on 9-11 stuff.
It sounds to me like you are having a problem discusing this issue, you don't have to debate issues with me if you don't want to. I find it interesting that you call two scientist morons because you disagree with them.

[beachnut]

I posted once and I have responded to replys of my post. Isn't that what these posts are for? I did not read Jones article about Jesus. What does that prove him a moron? I have just been reading up on 9-11 stuff.
It sounds to me like you are having a problem discusing this issue, you don't have to debate issues with me if you don't want to. I find it interesting that you call two scientist morons because you disagree with them.
Nope, Jesus does not make Jones a dope or a moron. But his comments on 9/11 about thermite 4 years after the act and making up lies is moronic. Jones is a dolt on 9/11, if you have some evidence to support him, you can do something he can't.

Bring up some proof of thermite on 9/11 used to bring down the WTC and you have a Pulitzer Prize, stop acting dumb and bring facts or confess you are unable to think for yourself so you believe people who make up junk about 9/11.
Jones has repeatedly said official investigations have not followed proper scientific method. Please point out the areas of the investigation that Jones says are wrong. But you can not let Jones lie about thermite. Jones says the WTC were exploded by people unknown; That is a nut case idea and you have zero evidence to support JONES or his ideas. Put up some evidence to support Jones' ideas. You can not! You have nothing. Why are you fact less on 9/11 and clearly ignorant that Jones' themite was made up 4 years after 9/11. 4 years and then he makes up lies; WHY? Why is Jones telling lies?

You must be upset a person who seems to be a lay person is smarter on 9/11 than a Jones who has nut case ideas on 9/11. What is pathetic, you are fooled by a few so called "experts", and you have no clue why they are wrong, or able to support them. Pathetic.

[Coffee]

Quintiere has said investigation was blocked from seeking answers. And Quintiere says new independent investigation needs to happen. What is taken out of context?
How can nist investigation be scientific when it was block from seeking answers? Ignoring evidence & facts is not scientific. Again calling people names because they disagree with you is avoiding issues. Check out journalof911studies.com and read the scientific debate between Greening & Ross. no name calling, all about the numbers & mathamatical equations. Thats how scientist debate, thats how issues are handled.

You have mentioned journalof911studies.com at least three times and you say people here should check it out. Are you spamming for the site? Everyone here is fully aware of its existence. Quintierre has been covered previously here. Please use the search feature to find the thread about him.

[lisabob2]

But, Jones and Quintiere want a new investigation for diametrically opposed reasons. Quintiere does NOT suspect the towers were CD, and in fact accuses NIST of being too conservative; he would certainly agree however with their premise.

Jones is a throughly discredited biased pseudo-investigator who thinks the WTC was brought down by thermite and that NIST is lying.

You realize that if you want to tie in Quintiere with Jones this would require 2 separate investigations, right? Quintiere's issues with NIST in no way, shape, or form lend any credence to Jones' 'research'.
Actually Quintiere words were investigation "was blocked from seeking answers". Quintiere is quoted as saying a new independent investigation is needed. Thats were he & Jones agree, only that a new investigation is needed. They both have ideas about collapse but without a real scientific investigation nobody has anything but theories right now.

[DGM]

Actually Quintiere words were investigation "was blocked from seeking answers". Quintiere is quoted as saying a new independent investigation is needed. Thats were he & Jones agree, only that a new investigation is needed. They both have ideas about collapse but without a real scientific investigation nobody has anything but theories right now.
Who told you what Dr. Quintiere said? You obviously have not read what he said himself.
Do you think he disagrees with NIST's conclusions?

[lisabob2]

Nope, Jesus does not make Jones a dope or a moron. But his comments on 9/11 about thermite 4 years after the act and making up lies is moronic. Jones is a dolt on 9/11, if you have some evidence to support him, you can do something he can't.

Bring up some proof of thermite on 9/11 used to bring down the WTC and you have a Pulitzer Prize, stop acting dumb and bring facts or confess you are unable to think for yourself so you believe people who make up junk about 9/11.
Please point out the areas of the investigation that Jones says are wrong. But you can not let Jones lie about thermite. Jones says the WTC were exploded by people unknown; That is a nut case idea and you have zero evidence to support JONES or his ideas. Put up some evidence to support Jones' ideas. You can not! You have nothing. Why are you fact less on 9/11 and clearly ignorant that Jones' themite was made up 4 years after 9/11. 4 years and then he makes up lies; WHY? Why is Jones telling lies?

You must be upset a person who seems to be a lay person is smarter on 9/11 than a Jones who has nut case ideas on 9/11. What is pathetic, you are fooled by a few so called "experts", and you have no clue why they are wrong, or able to support them. Pathetic.
Interesting that you call somebody a dolt because they disagree with you. I find it hard to ignore David Griscom's view of the science of 9-11. Griscom supports Jones & Griffin work on 9-11. To totally disregard somebody with that experience & respect from his peers is odd.
Jones points out that any investigation that ignores data & evidence is not proper science. Quintiere is quoted as saying new investigation is needed. He make specific points and also says investigation was blocked from seeking answers. I think that makes it obvious that investigation was inadequate. Unless Quintiere was just making it up, which I very seriously doubt.

[beachnut]

Actually Quintiere words were investigation "was blocked from seeking answers". Quintiere is quoted as saying a new independent investigation is needed. Thats were he & Jones agree, only that a new investigation is needed. They both have ideas about collapse but without a real scientific investigation nobody has anything but theories right now.
Roberts uses fact and evidence to support his conclusions. Jones uses nothing! Jones just makes it up. If you can not go to the journal of 9/11 truth and see it is a SHAM, you need some help.

As already said use the search function and read for a few days before you expose more ignorance on the topic of 9/11.

Please pick an error Roberts has made, that is the thread topic, not Jones. If you want to discuss how you can support the liars who write and publish their papers on 9/11 at journal of 9/11 truth, please start a thread. But the journal of 9/11 truth was started because no one would publish the lies of Jones. Roberts does not lie, if you find an error he can correct it unlike Jones who just keeps making up lies.

[lisabob2]

Who told you what Dr. Quintiere said? You obviously have not read what he said himself.
Do you think he disagrees with NIST's conclusions?
www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

[twinstead]

Actually Quintiere words were investigation "was blocked from seeking answers". Quintiere is quoted as saying a new independent investigation is needed. Thats were he & Jones agree, only that a new investigation is needed. They both have ideas about collapse but without a real scientific investigation nobody has anything but theories right now.

Many, many experts in the relevant fields, from around the world, would strongly disagree with you that NIST wasn't a real scientific investigation, and that includes Quintiere. Exactly what expertise to you bring to the table to claim otherwise again?

The fact that you posted this AFTER you have been told exactly what Quintiere's issues are with NIST and how it is totally wrong to say he and Jones want the same thing confuses me.

Are you reading the posts directed towards you?

[twinstead]

www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

And THIS you equate with Jones' paranoid ramblings?

[beachnut]

Interesting that you call somebody a dolt because they disagree with you. I find it hard to ignore David Griscom's view of the science of 9-11. Griscom supports Jones & Griffin work on 9-11. To totally disregard somebody with that experience & respect from his peers is odd.
Jones points out that any investigation that ignores data & evidence is not proper science. Quintiere is quoted as saying new investigation is needed. He make specific points and also says investigation was blocked from seeking answers. I think that makes it obvious that investigation was inadequate. Unless Quintiere was just making it up, which I very seriously doubt.
Griscom is wrong, you should have been an engineer, he is a biased politcally blinded fool who makes up stuff about 9/11. Please read his stuff on 9/11 and point out what he got right! You can't~!

Jones failed to point out the NIST ignores data and evidence.

Jones is the one who has no evidence to support his ideas on 9/11. He made up the thermite claim 4 years after 9/11 due to the war in Iraq. He is spreading lies. Why are you unable to see that?

What was so obvious that the investigationS were inadequate, please a list would be great, instead of a rant of how your experts, who make up stuff about 9/11, know something but you can not support them with facts! You just say they have something. No facts from you, no facts from Jones. I hate to ask, but please tell me you are not an engineer.

Jones is a dolt on 9/11 topics (and you can not even bring up something he has got right), his call for a new investigation is truly an ignorant thing to ask for and for you to support. Why are you ignorant on 9/11 topics and unable to see the false information Jones makes up?

[DGM]

www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF , which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."
So you got your information second hand.

Do you plan to answer my question or should i take this as an "I don't know"?

Just in case you missed it.
Do [B]you think he disagrees with NIST's conclusions?

[Coffee]

www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

Dr. Quintiere said he originally "had high hopes" that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. "They're the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it's the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything."

Apparently this needs to be made clear to you; This thread is not about Quintiere or Jones. This is the Mark Roberts Factual Thread. If you have found errors in Mark's work then please point them out and back up your claim with evidence.
If you wish to discuss Quintiere or Jones then you should start another thread.

[lisabob2]

Roberts uses fact and evidence to support his conclusions. Jones uses nothing! Jones just makes it up. If you can not go to the journal of 9/11 truth and see it is a SHAM, you need some help.

As already said use the search function and read for a few days before you expose more ignorance on the topic of 9/11.

Please pick an error Roberts has made, that is the thread topic, not Jones. If you want to discuss how you can support the liars who write and publish their papers on 9/11 at journal of 9/11 truth, please start a thread. But the journal of 9/11 truth was started because no one would publish the lies of Jones. Roberts does not lie, if you find an error he can correct it unlike Jones who just keeps making up lies.
I have read thru 911myths & journalof911studies. I find journal much more scientific, and it has Greening making his opinion known on it. Ross then puts in his response to Greening, but it is very issue oriented, no name calling, or avoiding facts & evidence. Just two different views of same event. Both men are educated & show us how we should debate issues.

[lisabob2]

So you got your information second hand.

Do you plan to answer my question or should i take this as an "I don't know"?

Just in case you missed it.
If Quitiere wants new independent investigation then it is pretty obvious that he thinks nist investigation was lacking.

[jhunter1163]

As I read the above quote from Quintiere, it seems that he is complaining that the powers-that-be at NIST limited the scope of the investigation in some way by not including ATF in it. I am not sure why this would affect NIST's investigation in any way; they certainly appeared to have enough data to exhaustively model the tragic events of the day.

And, as has been pointed out above, this has nothing to do with any factual error Mark Roberts has made.

[DGM]

If Quitiere wants new independent investigation then it is pretty obvious that he thinks nist investigation was lacking.
Why can't you answer the question? I didn't ask if it was lacking, I asked if he agreed with the findings.

[lisabob2]

Apparently this needs to be made clear to you; This thread is not about Quintiere or Jones. This is the Mark Roberts Factual Thread. If you have found errors in Mark's work then please point them out and back up your claim with evidence.
If you wish to discuss Quintiere or Jones then you should start another thread.
I think it is obvious that if nist investigation is not a good investigation and Quintiere wants new one then much of Roberts "facts" are in question. How can you base your entire theory on incomplete and unscientific investigation? You cannot deny that Quintiere wants new investigation.

[lisabob2]

Why can't you answer the question? I didn't ask if it was lacking, I asked if he agreed with the findings.
I know that Quintiere wants new investigation, and if he agrees with the findings of nist after questioning it that is his choice.
I cannot answer what Quintiere agrees with, I can only see what he has said. I do not know if he agrees with nist findings, but he thinks a new investigation is needed, & I agree with that.

[T.A.M.]

Am I remembering incorrectly, or did Quintere ask for another look at the evidence collected?

I do not recall him calling for a NEW INVESTIGATION, but rather a review of the facts and data from the existing one.

Am I wrong here??

TAM:)

[DGM]

I know that Quintiere wants new investigation, and if he agrees with the findings of nist after questioning it that is his choice.
I cannot answer what Quintiere agrees with, I can only see what he has said. I do not know if he agrees with nist findings, but he thinks a new investigation is needed, & I agree with that.
You don't know because you only get your information from tainted sources. This is a problem that you have to work out for yourself if you really want to find the "truth".

Please look into what he wants an investigation into.

[DGM]

Am I remembering incorrectly, or did Quintere ask for another look at the evidence collected?

I do not recall him calling for a NEW INVESTIGATION, but rather a review of the facts and data from the existing one.

Am I wrong here??

TAM:)
No your not wrong. He wants more emphasis on fire proofing and fire safety (mostly code issues). He does say that the building would have collapsed with no fire proofing removed by the impacts. That's the type of thing he wants looked into for code improvements.

[lisabob2]

As I read the above quote from Quintiere, it seems that he is complaining that the powers-that-be at NIST limited the scope of the investigation in some way by not including ATF in it. I am not sure why this would affect NIST's investigation in any way; they certainly appeared to have enough data to exhaustively model the tragic events of the day.

And, as has been pointed out above, this has nothing to do with any factual error Mark Roberts has made.
Dr. Quintiere's presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on "The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps", at which he stated:

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that"

"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated"

very unscientific I believe and I have pointed this out before as I have read nist report(most of it) and I found this to be true. I have been called names for pointing this out but with Quintiere pointing it out I am hoping others will actually read the report and see for themselves.

[twinstead]

No your not wrong. He wants more emphasis on fire proofing and fire safety (mostly code issues). He does say that the building would have collapsed with no fire proofing removed by the impacts. That's the type of thing he wants looked into for code improvements.

A point that flies by most truthers. The man actually thinks it was even easier for the plane impact and subsequent fires to bring the buildings down than NIST does.

[beachnut]

I have read thru 911myths & journalof911studies. I find journal much more scientific, and it has Greening making his opinion known on it. Ross then puts in his response to Greening, but it is very issue oriented, no name calling, or avoiding facts & evidence. Just two different views of same event. Both men are educated & show us how we should debate issues. As an engineer I see the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a fraud and politically biased tripe. Don't you? You must not be an engineer, are you? So you seem to be a truther, unable to find and use facts to make rational conclusion on 9/11.

Jones made up thermite. He says this was cut by thrermite or RDX. He discoverdd thermite is not used for CD, so he added RDX cause it is! Good job, at least he can learn while he tells lies.
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/jonelie1.jpg
Jones - … this was NOT cut using an oxy-acetylene torch, but rather that a highly exothermic chemical reaction was involved in cutting through this steel column.)
He is making it up, it was cut during clean up, not on 9/11. Jones is a liar.
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/jonelie2.jpg
Jones - Explosives such as RDX, or HMX, or superthermites, when pre-positioned by a small team of operatives, would suffice to cut the supports at key points such that these tall buildings would completely collapse with little damage to surrounding buildings. Radio-initiated firing of the charges is implicated here, perhaps using superthermite matches.Nope, these were also cut during clean up after 9/11. More made up junk by Jones. Little damage to surrounding buildings! What! Nuts, 19 acres were messed up and major damage to many buildings happened. What a nut! Did you read his stuff? Are you paying attention to this pathetic tripe.

Jones - Using computer-controlled radio signals, it would be an easy matter to begin the explosive demolition near the point of entry of the planes in the Towers (to make it appear that the planes somehow initiated the collapse.) In this scenario, linear cutter-charges would have been placed at numerous points in the building, mostly on the critical core columns, since one would not know beforehand exactly where the planes would enter.
Now Jones is saying the terrorist flew the planes to avoid the pre planted explosives. Jones is saying the building was pre wired with radio controlled explosives and the terrorist pilots hit exact points! LOL Jones is fruit loops nuts on this, I would love to explain but if you can not get it on your own, you may not be able to think rationally. But if you are holding information now is the time to expose your facts to support Jones the dolt on 9/11 studies! Come on and show your stuff.

See, you came to say Roberts is not qualified, and now the world will see you and Jones are not qualified or able to make rational conclusion on 9/11. Roberts is. So unless you have an error to expose of Roberts, you need to move your junk to another thread!

This debunks Jones on 9/11 until you can prove the columns cut during clean up are really evidence for Jones (do you see your problem?) I assume now you will bring up an error by Roberts?

[T.A.M.]

So please bold the text where he asks for a NEW INVESTIGATION.

Having questions is not the same as asking for a NEW INVESTIGATION.

This has been discussed at length elsewhere on this forum...use the search function.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Lisabob cherry picking actual cherries produces delicious fruit. Taking random quotes out of context just leaves a sour taste.

[DGM]

Dr. Quintiere's presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on "The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps", at which he stated:

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that"

"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated"

very unscientific I believe and I have pointed this out before as I have read nist report(most of it) and I found this to be true. I have been called names for pointing this out but with Quintiere pointing it out I am hoping others will actually read the report and see for themselves.
When you "cut and paste" a post it is customary to list your source. That way no one will accuse you of plagiarism.

[lisabob2]

Am I remembering incorrectly, or did Quintere ask for another look at the evidence collected?

I do not recall him calling for a NEW INVESTIGATION, but rather a review of the facts and data from the existing one.

Am I wrong here??

TAM:)
is there any difference? Really? After reading what he has said is there any doubt he has serious issues with the nist report?

[T.A.M.]

is there any difference? Really? After reading what he has said is there any doubt he has serious issues with the nist report?

There is a HUGE AMOUNT of difference, financially, logistically, as well as blame.

Asking questions about areas that were inadequately (in is view) analyzed, or that were not looked at, is much, MUCH different then saying we need a NEW INVESTIGATION.

It is amazing that you do not see such a difference.

And no, it is quite clear he has issues with the report, but you alleged he wanted a NEW INVESTIGATION, so clarify or retract please.

Thanks

TAM:)

[lisabob2]

A point that flies by most truthers. The man actually thinks it was even easier for the plane impact and subsequent fires to bring the buildings down than NIST does.
"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."
Quintiere words. so he believes this, and he believes in nists findings? does that seem strange to anybody but me?

[twinstead]

is there any difference? Really? After reading what he has said is there any doubt he has serious issues with the nist report?

But do these issues suggest that hijackers DIDN'T crash planes into the WTC causing the damage and subsequent fires to make the buildings collapse?

If not, who cares? This if obviously an issue between Quintere and the NIST. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong.

The fact remains that unless it is evidence that 911 was an inside job, I could care less; issues like this are probably pretty common in large investigations like this.

[DGM]

"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."
Quintiere words. so he believes this, and he believes in nists findings? does that seem strange to anybody but me?
Source?

[twinstead]

"A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have."
Quintiere words. so he believes this, and he believes in nists findings? does that seem strange to anybody but me?

This proves you are simply scouring Quintere's quotes trying to make a case for an inside job instead of reading it all, if indeed this is really a quote.

Welcome to biasville. Population: you

[lisabob2]

There is a HUGE AMOUNT of difference, financially, logistically, as well as blame.

Asking questions about areas that were inadequately (in is view) analyzed, or that were not looked at, is much, MUCH different then saying we need a NEW INVESTIGATION.

It is amazing that you do not see such a difference.

And no, it is quite clear he has issues with the report, but you alleged he wanted a NEW INVESTIGATION, so clarify or retract please.

Thanks

TAM:)
First of all, a new investigation would have to rely on much of the data from nists investigation. Basically a new investigation would look at all evidence & data collected already and look at all possible answers. Any new "investigating" would be hard to do with all the evidence gone. So having a independent group looking at all the evidence from nist is about the closest thing to a new investigation as possible.

[T.A.M.]

The NIST investigation involved the COLLECTION OF DATA, ANALYSIS OF SAID DATA, and CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THIS ANALYSIS.

Perhaps what you mean is Quintere is calling for a REANALYSIS of the the NIST Data and evidence. If that is what you meant, than you should restate...the words NEW INVESTIGATION get thrown around by truth movement members much too easily.

TAM:)

[lisabob2]

Source?
www .opednews. com
August 21, 2007
His presentation "Questions on the WTC Investigations" was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at www. fleetwoodonsite. com

for some reason it took awhile for this to get out, he said it June 4th and open news reported it August 21

[MikeW]

The source for this is Alan Millers article at http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_alan_mil_070820_former _chief_of_nist.htm

It's notable for things like this.

Miller's version:
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

Full quote, snipped perhaps so you don't realise Quintiere is questioning how much fire protection the towers had:

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? The insulation thickness of the truss members varied from 0.5 inches at its construction, changed to a specification of 1.5 inches in 1995, and was taken on its face as 2.5 inches for the North tower fire floors based on a PA report. This extraordinary range of thicknesses bears an in depth investigation. Why were no hearings held or witness testimonies heard on this critical design process?
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0.htm

Miller's version:
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

Full quote, I suspect snipped by Miller because he didn't want people to see that Quintiere was saying the fires would be hotter than NIST claims:

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? Especially, as we have pointed out to NIST that they may have underestimated the weight of the furnishings in the North Tower by a factor of 3. As fire effects on structure depend on temperature and time, this likely longer burning time is significant in the NIST analyses. Other tests of the trusses in the UL furnaces show that the steel attains critical temperatures in short times, and these temperatures correspond to NIST's own computation of truss failure for a single truss. Why have these findings seemingly been ignored in the NIST analyses?
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0.htm

Re: the point in question here, Miller's post was accurate. Quintiere said in full:

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

But as pointed out above, he actually believes the fires were probably hotter than NIST claims: his issue is with the collection of the steel alone.

[twinstead]

Ignore this post at will

[DGM]

The source for this is Alan Millers article at http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_alan_mil_070820_former _chief_of_nist.htm

It's notable for things like this.

Miller's version:


Full quote, snipped perhaps so you don't realise Quintiere is questioning how much fire protection the towers had:



Miller's version:


Full quote, I suspect snipped by Miller because he didn't want people to see that Quintiere was saying the fires would be hotter than NIST claims:



Re: the point in question here, Miller's post was accurate. Quintiere said in full:



But as pointed out above, he actually believes the fires were probably hotter than NIST claims: his issue is with the collection of the steel alone.
Thanks Mike, I actually knew that I just wanted to see our new friend show the source of his "picked" claims.

[lisabob2]

This proves you are simply scouring Quintere's quotes trying to make a case for an inside job instead of reading it all, if indeed this is really a quote.

Welcome to biasville. Population: you
I am using his words, but I found the same problem with nist report. The temps that they use in their computer simulations are not corroborated with physical evidence.
I am not making a case for a inside job here. I am pointing out unscientific methods used by official story. I am, I believe open minded, I am looking at evidence from both sides. I believe that no theory so far on the building collapses have enough evidence to support it. nobody has done anything but bring possible theories, and anybody who claims that their theory is right does not have enough evidence to prove it.

[twinstead]

I am using his words, but I found the same problem with nist report. The temps that they use in their computer simulations are not corroborated with physical evidence.
I am not making a case for a inside job here. I am pointing out unscientific methods used by official story. I am, I believe open minded, I am looking at evidence from both sides. I believe that no theory so far on the building collapses have enough evidence to support it. nobody has done anything but bring possible theories, and anybody who claims that their theory is right does not have enough evidence to prove it.

See MikeW's post above concerning quote mining.

I totally disagree with you. Out of ALL the theories presented about 911, the 'official story' is the one that fits the evidence the best.

Is it perfect? No. But IMO there is NO contest between the official story and inside job.

[T.A.M.]

I am using his words, but I found the same problem with nist report. The temps that they use in their computer simulations are not corroborated with physical evidence.
I am not making a case for a inside job here. I am pointing out unscientific methods used by official story. I am, I believe open minded, I am looking at evidence from both sides. I believe that no theory so far on the building collapses have enough evidence to support it. nobody has done anything but bring possible theories, and anybody who claims that their theory is right does not have enough evidence to prove it.

Either you did not read enough, or you are choosing to ignore the fact that NIST would have had to explain why they used temps not confirmed by their examination of the steel.

Now given I know they explained this, why don't you tell us what you find wrong with NIST's reasons for using temps not confirmed by the steel samples.

TAM:)

[DGM]

I am using his words, but I found the same problem with nist report. The temps that they use in their computer simulations are not corroborated with physical evidence.
I am not making a case for a inside job here. I am pointing out unscientific methods used by official story. I am, I believe open minded, I am looking at evidence from both sides. I believe that no theory so far on the building collapses have enough evidence to support it. nobody has done anything but bring possible theories, and anybody who claims that their theory is right does not have enough evidence to prove it.

The why do you use a "cherry picked" article to argue your case? Do you just like open minded dishonesty?

Read what he really says:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0.htm

[lisabob2]

The source for this is Alan Millers article at http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=genera_alan_mil_070820_former _chief_of_nist.htm

It's notable for things like this.

Miller's version:


Full quote, snipped perhaps so you don't realise Quintiere is questioning how much fire protection the towers had:



Miller's version:


Full quote, I suspect snipped by Miller because he didn't want people to see that Quintiere was saying the fires would be hotter than NIST claims:



Re: the point in question here, Miller's post was accurate. Quintiere said in full:



But as pointed out above, he actually believes the fires were probably hotter than NIST claims: his issue is with the collection of the steel alone.
Are you sure quote 5 is from Quintiere? I didn't find it from him. but I might be missing it.

[lisabob2]

Are you sure quote 5 is from Quintiere? I didn't find it from him. but I might be missing it.
I found it

[A W Smith]

lisabob. what do all your posts in this thread save for the first have to do with the OP?
or thread title

The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread.

Please start a new thread.

[Gravy]

I'd appreciate it if this thread can be restricted to discussion of factual errors I've made. Thanks.

[twinstead]

I'd appreciate it if this thread can be restricted to discussion of factual errors I've made. Thanks.

Killjoy. Pretty arrogant for one who hasn't made any factual errors...;)

[Jonnyclueless]

I'd appreciate it if this thread can be restricted to discussion of factual errors I've made. Thanks.


Dogs are not pickles.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'd appreciate it if this thread can be restricted to discussion of factual errors I've made. Thanks.

You location is not in FACT Taters!

[Zlaya]

The NIST investigation involved the COLLECTION OF DATA, ANALYSIS OF SAID DATA, and CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THIS ANALYSIS.

And then the data was discarded, and was made to fit the predetermined conclusion that Tim Osman did it, with his patsies.

Hey, that was hysterical, thank you!

[tomwaits]

Considering how they are implicating tons of people for murder, the truthers sure are sensitive to criticism. I can't say I've seen a truther go into a debate without their 2nd or 3rd post going "AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM PERSONAL ATTACKS YOU GUYS ARE BIG JERKS". It's called criticism. Did you really think you could go on a skeptics forum and not be questioned? Sheesh.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I see that Bellone is not a reliable source, but how about DeMasi? Are you calling him a liar?

that has got to be the FASTEST sidestepping i have ever seen from red!:D

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Considering how they are implicating tons of people for murder, the truthers sure are sensitive to criticism. I can't say I've seen a truther go into a debate without their 2nd or 3rd post going "AD HOMINEM AD HOMINEM PERSONAL ATTACKS YOU GUYS ARE BIG JERKS". It's called criticism. Did you really think you could go on a skeptics forum and not be questioned? Sheesh.
We have seen this type of attitude from twoofers before.
These idiots hardly impress me.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Oh please ceramic bird, Cry me a river!
Got my credit card in hand.
Willing to donate $100 to Rodriguez' pocket (which is what Rodriguez' "charity" is anyway) if you can make him come here and prove that everything mark has wrote about him is a lie.he is a member here so i see no problem.
Pure and simple.
So what do u say red?
In case you "missed" it red.
And if you can't get Willie to answer the "lies" that mark has wrote about him, you then donate $100. to THIS forum.
Think about it red, it would only cost me $100 out of my pocket but Willie and you will earn my respect.

[chillzero]

As has been noted a few times, the thread is veering off topic. Please get it back on track, or it may be set to moderated status.

[metamars]

I'd appreciate it if this thread can be restricted to discussion of factual errors I've made. Thanks.

What claims do you make regarding the Bazant Zhou paper?

[Dave Rogers]

Finally, the only way to factually make the statement No evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columns is to chemically test the debris for evidence of explosives.

This is hilarious, Swing. Your argument is that the statement "There is no evidence of explosives use on WTC exterior columns" is incorrect because not enough evidence was looked for. That doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence. Whether or not you have a valid point that explosives tests should have been carried out, we know that they weren't; therefore the paper is factually correct on this.

Dave

[RedIbis]

Since NIST has given its recent conference call, updating the timetable for its report on WTC 7, Mark Roberts should revise the following:

From Roberts' paper (http://http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/diddieselfuelforwtc7%E2%80%99semergencygenerator): Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?




Short answer: yes we do, and Shyam Sunder states that the fires were not caused by fuel on the premises.

19:00 mark at http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~nist/asx/nist-wtc-121807.asx

The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by “normal bldg fires”

“not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines”

“or from fuel fires due to fuel that was in the D(?) tanks that was in the bldg.”


I know Sunder's comments are very recent, and it can take time to revise an essay, but at this point, Gravy has to retitle and rethink his article, as diesel has been ruled out as the fuel fires which cause the collapse of WTC 7.

[Pookster]

.

Does this "fact" stand up to scrutiny? Only if you support the FBI's and NIST statements and call two firefighters liars.

Apparently the black boxes were found at the site. You can read the accont by firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi here. (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html)http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html

N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them.

A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB."Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

Mark Roberts is in a predicament. By stating the black boxes were not found via the statements of the FBI and NTSB he is accusing Mr. Bellone and Mr. De Masi of lying.
But why would two firefighters, heroes in most peoples eyes, lie about something as important as this?

I'm curious though as to why Mark would leave this important account out of his 9/11 Aircraft Parts and Contents Recovered in NYC .

Mark does do a great job of listing accounts of all of the trivial things that were found by people on the scene, including seat cushions, tickets, airplane parts (sorry no planers), etc, but fails to include the accounts of Bellone and De Masi. Why? Fallacy of Omission? Poor research? Or is it to support the official theory and the statements of Federal Agencies?

I will recant this comment if Mr. Bellone and Mr. De Masi have retracted their original story.

I've inquired several times now for you to quote Nicholas DeMasi words from 2004 that in previous posts you wanted responses to regarding its truthfulness, and referenced by you in the bolded statement from above. Can you? I can't seem to locate any related quotes from 2004. Your assistance will be very helpful. Thanks.

[LastChild]

I've inquired several times now for you to quote Nicholas DeMasi words from 2004 that in previous posts you wanted responses to regarding its truthfulness, and referenced by you in the bolded statement from above. Can you? I can't seem to locate any related quotes from 2004. Your assistance will be very helpful. Thanks.

I don't know but he's probably referencing the 2004 story by William Bunch in the Philidelphia Daily News that was picked up by other news agencies.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html#more

Is this an error? I mean they did say they found the boxes didn't they?

[Pookster]

I don't know but he's probably referencing the 2004 story by William Bunch in the Philidelphia Daily News that was picked up by other news agencies.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001139.html#more

Is this an error? I mean they did say they found the boxes didn't they?

The linked article by Swing Dangler says DeMasi claimed something in 2004. He uses that to assert Gravy is in error. Your linked article states: "Efforts over several days to locate and interview DeMasi, who is now said to be with the FDNY’s Marine Unit, were not successful." That doesn't sound like the DeMasi claim from 2004 to me.

At the moment, even RedIbis believes Bellone is not a reliable source ... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3266542&postcount=846

All I've seen referenced using google is the 2003 book that this unreliable source and DeMasi supposedly did together. However, the linked article states the claim was from 2004, not 2003. So, I need a quote in order to even begin to determine the reliability of DeMasi's 2004 claim.

Thanks for trying though.

[Jonnyclueless]

And then the data was discarded, and was made to fit the predetermined conclusion that Tim Osman did it, with his patsies.

Hey, that was hysterical, thank you!


Zlaya, please stay on topic. This is about lies and errors in Mark's work, not about making up your own lies.

[LastChild]

The linked article by Swing Dangler says DeMasi claimed something in 2004. He uses that to assert Gravy is in error. Your linked article states: "Efforts over several days to locate and interview DeMasi, who is now said to be with the FDNY’s Marine Unit, were not successful." That doesn't sound like the DeMasi claim from 2004 to me.

At the moment, even RedIbis believes Bellone is not a reliable source ... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3266542&postcount=846

All I've seen referenced using google is the 2003 book that this unreliable source and DeMasi supposedly did together. However, the linked article states the claim was from 2004, not 2003. So, I need a quote in order to even begin to determine the reliability of DeMasi's 2004 claim.

Thanks for trying though.

No problem

It’s DeMasi who is claimed in the Aug 2003 book to have witnessed the following…

DeMasi was with now defunct Engine Company 261 in 2001. He wrote up his recollections of the Ground Zero recovery in a glossy book self-published by a group that calls itself Trauma Recovery Assistance for Children, or the TRAC Team. The book was published in 2003 but received little notice.
DeMasi, an all-terrain vehicles hobbyist - said he donated 4 ATVs to the clean-up and became known as “the ATV Guy.”

“At one point, I was asked to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes,” he wrote. “We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV...”

“There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.”

This was pointed to and brought to light in the 2004 Philadelphia News article that was then picked up and ran by other news agencies. If DeMasi or other are misrepresented then one would think there should be some sort of retraction somewhere. Unless of course you are making the implication that Bellone, DeMasi, and others, are conspiracy liars looking to make a buck on accusing innocents of murder. In which case you would think DeMasi would have followed up on his claims to milk it for all it’s worth.

Now would DeMasi a firefighter at the time be accusing himself of murder?

What is your implication? I don't think Swing pointing to an article from 2004 that quotes DeMasi from a late 2003 book can really be pointed to as inaccurate. At least not anywhere near the same level of inaccuracy shown by Gravy who seemed to conveniently miss this entire documented fact.

[Arus808]

Does zlaya have a problem with dates? did he just ignore what was posted?

[DGM]

What would be the point in hiding the boxes? If they were incriminating they could always change them and release whatever they wanted. This whole thing is pointless.

[LastChild]

What would be the point in hiding the boxes? If they were incriminating they could always change them and release whatever they wanted. This whole thing is pointless.

Well where are they? Aren't they made of steel and built to be recovered? They didn't melt did they?

[DGM]

Well where are they? Aren't they made of steel and built to be recovered? They didn't melt did they?
You didn't happen to see the hunk of concrete and stuff that they call the "meteorite"? That was 4 floors compressed together, and you ask what happened to the boxes? They're not indestructible.

[LastChild]

You didn't happen to see the hunk of concrete and stuff that they call the "meteorite"? That was 4 floors compressed together, and you ask what happened to the boxes? They're not indestructible.


So you're calling the heroic firefighters liars? Are they accusing people of murder too?

[DGM]

So you're calling the heroic firefighters liars? Are they accusing people of murder too?
No, Where did I say that? Have you ever heard of "mistaken".

Why would "they" go through all the trouble of hiding them if people actually saw them? Just change the data. Your argument is about as illogical as it gets.

[LastChild]

No, Where did I say that? Have you ever heard of "mistaken".

Why would "they" go through all the trouble of hiding them if people actually saw them? Just change the data. Your argument is about as illogical as it gets.

They are mistaken about the FBI telling them not to talk about it? How does one make that sort of mistake? lol And why change the data when you can just hide the boxes?

[DGM]

They are mistaken about the FBI telling them not to talk about it? How does one make that sort of mistake? lol And why change the data when you can just hide the boxes?
I forgot that detail. Yes, I'm calling those particular ones liars.

[LastChild]

I forgot that detail. Yes, I'm calling those particular ones liars.


Yeah well I can see where being forgetful would help in sustaining a belief of the official conspiracy theory.

[DGM]

Yeah well I can see where being forgetful would help in sustaining a belief of the official conspiracy theory.
Actually a little factual evidence would help your movement immensely.

[beachnut]

They are mistaken about the FBI telling them not to talk about it? How does one make that sort of mistake? lol And why change the data when you can just hide the boxes?
Pathetic charge. The FBI hides the boxes because changing the data is too hard, or they are too lazy? And of course this lie means 9/11 was an inside job because you made it up, the uncle Fetzer school of, I said it, it is true. Cool

This is pathetic since we know 11 and 175 hit the WTC towers. We need no FDR to tell us what we saw. The FDR is used to see what happen to the planes in an accident; there was no accident on 9/11. Sorry, you whole point is worthless, pointless, tripe. Just junk so you can accuse the FBI of lying. Good job. You sound like a broken record jumping on made up, idiotic detail you made up!

This is your best? They hid the FDR! That is it? It mean what? Oh, you don't know. Good stuff. Couple this with all the facts of 9/11 truth and we have a pile of nothing. Still no error for Mark, just smart remarks and making fun while you pile up your zero facts on nothing about nothing for no reason but to blame the FBI for something you made up that they didn't do. Fantasy or just poor research with no rational conclusions?

[LastChild]

Actually a little factual evidence would help your movement immensely.

You mean like the factual evidence that Gravy missed where the firefighters claimed to have found the black boxes at the WTC and the FBI told them to keep quiet about it? The same firefighters who the debunkers always claim the truthers are accusing of murder?

Actually I think there is evidence like that and when you point it out to a debunker they'll try to hand wave it all away with something like "they must be mistaken". Then when you show the debunker that they couldn't be mistaken they'll the call the heroic firefighter a liar.

Nice movement you belong to there debunker.

[dbalsdon]

Have you ever heard of "mistaken".

Has any truther?

[Pookster]

No problem

It’s DeMasi who is claimed in the Aug 2003 book to have witnessed the following…

...

What is your implication? I don't think Swing pointing to an article from 2004 that quotes DeMasi from a late 2003 book can really be pointed to as inaccurate. At least not anywhere near the same level of inaccuracy shown by Gravy who seemed to conveniently miss this entire documented fact.

Given that the 2003 claim was made in a book co-authored (I assume) by a proven liar, I'd need a statement by DeMasi that the claim even in 2003 was accurate and true. But again, that was 2003 ... not 2004.

The alleged claim Swing Dangler is using to assert an error in Gravy's paper was supposedly made in 2004, according to the article linked and quoted by Swing Dangler. It wasn't a reference to his 2003 book. The article clearly states, "Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004". I've asked him a number of times to provide the quote by DeMasi for his 2004 claim. No one has provided it yet. Either it exists, or it doesn't.

Thanks again for trying to help out though.

[Pookster]

So you're calling the heroic firefighters liars? Are they accusing people of murder too?

Mike Bellone is a proven fraud. His claim to be a firefighter was a lie. I posted the link in one of my previous posts. Even RedIBis admits he's not reliable.

[DGM]

You mean like the factual evidence that Gravy missed where the firefighters claimed to have found the black boxes at the WTC and the FBI told them to keep quiet about it? The same firefighters who the debunkers always claim the truthers are accusing of murder?

Actually I think there is evidence like that and when you point it out to a debunker they'll try to hand wave it all away with something like "they must be mistaken". Then when you show the debunker that they couldn't be mistaken they'll the call the heroic firefighter a liar.

Nice movement you belong to there debunker.
Movement? What movement? I'm just a guy that doesn't fall for any BS story that people feed me. How about you?
Can this guy back up his story? Your not referring to Mike Bellone are you? He's not actually a fireman.

[LastChild]

Mike Bellone is a proven fraud. His claim to be a firefighter was a lie. I posted the link in one of my previous posts. Even RedIBis admits he's not reliable.

No what I read was that he was made an honorary firefighter I guess because of all the hours he worked down at groundzero. Is that why he's a fraud?

[Pookster]

No what I read was that he was made an honorary firefighter I guess because of all the hours he worked down at groundzero. Is that why he's a fraud?

He wasn't even an honorary firefighter. He lied about that. Yes, that is at least part of why he is a fraud. God knows what else he's lied about regarding 9/11.

"It wasn’t until two years later that we began getting complaints about him," Tinney said. "We have one honorary firefighter and that is a child from the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Aside from the child, it is normally the chiefs and those above who are made honorary firefighters and he (Bellone) isn’t one. He’s saying he was made an honorary firefighter by New York Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta. That’s a fallacy."

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2788173&postcount=8

Try again.

[Jonnyclueless]

What could possibly be on teh FDR that would possibly be incriminating? Another reason why eyewitness testimony is not always reliable. There was also a woman who was claiming that she was getting phone calls from her husband buried under the rumble on the 12th. Turned out she was lying. People lie. That's the problem with relying ONLY on witness testimony.

I also find it interesting how one of the firefighters claims to have been involved with the cleanup of the Columbia shuttle disaster. Gee, we have a shuttle break up over the SW, let's call a firefighter in NYC. Sounds like a really honest guy.

[lisabob2]

Roberts uses fact and evidence to support his conclusions. Jones uses nothing! Jones just makes it up. If you can not go to the journal of 9/11 truth and see it is a SHAM, you need some help.

As already said use the search function and read for a few days before you expose more ignorance on the topic of 9/11.

Please pick an error Roberts has made, that is the thread topic, not Jones. If you want to discuss how you can support the liars who write and publish their papers on 9/11 at journal of 9/11 truth, please start a thread. But the journal of 9/11 truth was started because no one would publish the lies of Jones. Roberts does not lie, if you find an error he can correct it unlike Jones who just keeps making up lies.
I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly? I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right. What proof does he have that pictures & documents released from Goverment or any agency is not tampered with or just plain fake? None. Think about it, if there is a conspiracy, then anything goverment or media produces cannot be trusted. So you need a open investigation by independent
scientists. One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal. since flying a 757 or 767 at altitudes below 1000 feet at high speeds is impossible, it would shake and be uncontrollable, according to Boeing engineers & Pilots. The jets cannot reach high speeds until they are above a certain height.

[lisabob2]

As an engineer I see the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a fraud and politically biased tripe. Don't you? You must not be an engineer, are you? So you seem to be a truther, unable to find and use facts to make rational conclusion on 9/11.

Jones made up thermite. He says this was cut by thrermite or RDX. He discoverdd thermite is not used for CD, so he added RDX cause it is! Good job, at least he can learn while he tells lies.
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/jonelie1.jpg
He is making it up, it was cut during clean up, not on 9/11. Jones is a liar.
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/jonelie2.jpg
Nope, these were also cut during clean up after 9/11. More made up junk by Jones. Little damage to surrounding buildings! What! Nuts, 19 acres were messed up and major damage to many buildings happened. What a nut! Did you read his stuff? Are you paying attention to this pathetic tripe.


Now Jones is saying the terrorist flew the planes to avoid the pre planted explosives. Jones is saying the building was pre wired with radio controlled explosives and the terrorist pilots hit exact points! LOL Jones is fruit loops nuts on this, I would love to explain but if you can not get it on your own, you may not be able to think rationally. But if you are holding information now is the time to expose your facts to support Jones the dolt on 9/11 studies! Come on and show your stuff.

See, you came to say Roberts is not qualified, and now the world will see you and Jones are not qualified or able to make rational conclusion on 9/11. Roberts is. So unless you have an error to expose of Roberts, you need to move your junk to another thread!

This debunks Jones on 9/11 until you can prove the columns cut during clean up are really evidence for Jones (do you see your problem?) I assume now you will bring up an error by Roberts?
those pics are not evidence of anything but damage at ground zero. Jones said the core columns pic is curious but more test would have to be done on the core column. He did not jump to any conclusions about that pic. He has done scientific tests that he says suggest thermate was used and his hypothesis was that it or some other incenderary was used to weaken the steel columns. What scientific tests were done to prove him wrong?

[DGM]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly? I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right. What proof does he have that pictures & documents released from Goverment or any agency is not tampered with or just plain fake? None. Think about it, if there is a conspiracy, then anything goverment or media produces cannot be trusted. So you need a open investigation by independent
scientists. One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal. since flying a 757 or 767 at altitudes below 1000 feet at high speeds is impossible, it would shake and be uncontrollable, according to Boeing engineers & Pilots. The jets cannot reach high speeds until they are above a certain height.
What is stopping you and the "truth" movement from doing this investigation? I know why but do you?

[T.A.M.]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly? I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right. What proof does he have that pictures & documents released from Goverment or any agency is not tampered with or just plain fake? None. Think about it, if there is a conspiracy, then anything goverment or media produces cannot be trusted. So you need a open investigation by independent
scientists. One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal. since flying a 757 or 767 at altitudes below 1000 feet at high speeds is impossible, it would shake and be uncontrollable, according to Boeing engineers & Pilots. The jets cannot reach high speeds until they are above a certain height.

1. You heard???

2. The government photos and evidence is fake? Well there in lies the paranoid disclaimer that allows village idiots to become truthers. If it does not agree with the Conspiracy Theory, then clearly it was fake or tampered with.

3. There are a number of pilots and aircraft Technicians on this forum who would contest your proclamation that a 757/767 can't fly below 1000 feet.

TAM:)

[funk de fino]

I have heard Roberts say that plane was totally destroyed. Then bodies were found strapped to their seats. How is that possible? could a human body survive in a plane that was destroyed almost completly?

You are getting mixed up with the different crash sites


I have heard Roberts disregard evidence as wrong and produce pics that he says prove him right. What proof does he have that pictures & documents released from Goverment or any agency is not tampered with or just plain fake? None. Think about it, if there is a conspiracy, then anything goverment or media produces cannot be trusted. So you need a open investigation by independent
scientists.

Same old crap. Anything that is produced is fake regardless of where it came from. Give it a rest.


One more thing Roberts says plane that hit pentagon crashed going down when all "evidence"(light poles down, videos) show plane travelling horizontal. since flying a 757 or 767 at altitudes below 1000 feet at high speeds is impossible, it would shake and be uncontrollable, according to Boeing engineers & Pilots. The jets cannot reach high speeds until they are above a certain height.

Now you are just lying. please stop it. You are ignorant about aircraft and there are many pilots and technicians who know more that you on this site who say you are wrong. If you keep repeating this mistake then you are lying. There are many videos on youtube of aircraft like these flying at fast speeds at low levels. None of them crashed. The ones on 911 did.

If you are going to continue with this feeble attampt at being a truther at least read some of the threads on this site first and stop rehashing the same old crap. You are poor at this even by truther standards

[lisabob2]

Yes, I am. Education and peer-reviewed papers cannot prevent someone from being stupid.


You are taking Quintiere out of context, as others have already pointed out. Anybody who claims the NIST investigation wasn't scientific either hasn't read it or is a moron.


Your argument is predicated on the assumption that the NIST investigation was not actually a scientific investigation. This is incorrect. Because it was a scientific investigation (according to anybody who is not a moron), Mark Roberts is justified in using it as evidence in his arguments.
I am not a moron. I find problems with nist report. David Griscom is not a moron and he finds problems with nist report. Gordon Ross is not a moron,Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Jörg Schneider,James R. Carr, PhD, PE ,Mario Fontana,Ted Muga,William Rice,Charles N. Pegelow all are very highly educated people and not morons all have issues with the unscientific nist report.
No call me a moron but when highly eduacted people agree on something it takes more than somebody who calls people morons on posts to make me change my mind.

[funk de fino]

those pics are not evidence of anything but damage at ground zero. Jones said the core columns pic is curious but more test would have to be done on the core column. He did not jump to any conclusions about that pic. He has done scientific tests that he says suggest thermate was used and his hypothesis was that it or some other incenderary was used to weaken the steel columns. What scientific tests were done to prove him wrong?

Those pics are evidence of the dishonesty and ignorance of the 911 movement in that they use them in there fantasy about what happened and say thermite cut them when they were actually cut during the clean up operation by guys with torches. The claims that they were cut by thermite are bunk

[lisabob2]

No your not wrong. He wants more emphasis on fire proofing and fire safety (mostly code issues). He does say that the building would have collapsed with no fire proofing removed by the impacts. That's the type of thing he wants looked into for code improvements.
Quintiere says that A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated.
He wants a new independent review of nist report, so when I said investigation I used the wrong word. But cleary Quintiere has issues with nist report. Issues that many people who have read it also have.

[RedIbis]

I'd appreciate it if this thread can be restricted to discussion of factual errors I've made. Thanks.

Here's hoping three times is a charm:

In Part III of WTC Lies, you have a page entitled: "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

What follows is an impressive one page presentation, complete with numerous fuel tanker pics, compiled to convince the reader that diesel could have in fact sustained the fires which brought the bldg down.

This past week on this recorded conference call, available here (http://http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~nist/asx/nist-wtc-121807.asx) Sunder quite clearly states the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by “normal bldg fires”

“not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines”

“or from fuel fires due to fuel that was in the D(?) tanks that was in the bldg.”

So Mark, will you change your paper? eliminate the page? Reconsider your hypothesis that diesel fuel fed fires caused the collapse of the bldg?

[funk de fino]

I am not a moron.

Stop acting like one then



I find problems with nist report. David Griscom is not a moron and he finds problems with nist report.

You do not undertsand it and I guarantee you have not read it all

Gordon Ross is not a moron,Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Jörg Schneider,James R. Carr, PhD, PE ,Mario Fontana,Ted Muga,William Rice,Charles N. Pegelow all are very highly educated people and not morons all have issues with the unscientific nist report.

Not at one time maybe but there ideas on 911 are moronic. Ross comes from the same town i was born in and he is an embarrassment to the city.



No call me a moron but when highly eduacted people agree on something it takes more than somebody who calls people morons on posts to make me change my mind.

There are more highly educated people on here who disagree with your moron crowd. Your logic stinks. The fact you cannot spell the word educate says it all really.

[DGM]

Quintiere says that A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated.
He wants a new independent review of nist report, so when I said investigation I used the wrong word. But cleary Quintiere has issues with nist report. Issues that many people who have read it also have.
Seeing that you refuse to read either report theres no sense arguing with you. You can believe whatever you want. By the way have you bought all the "truther" DVD's for Christmas yet. I heard they need some more cash.

[twinstead]

Here's hoping three times is a charm:

In Part III of WTC Lies, you have a page entitled: "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

What follows is an impressive one page presentation, complete with numerous fuel tanker pics, compiled to convince the reader that diesel could have in fact sustained the fires which brought the bldg down.

This past week on this recorded conference call, available here (http://http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/%7Enist/asx/nist-wtc-121807.asx) Sunder quite clearly states the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by “normal bldg fires”

“not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines”

“or from fuel fires due to fuel that was in the D(?) tanks that was in the bldg.”

So Mark, will you change your paper? eliminate the page? Reconsider your hypothesis that diesel fuel fed fires caused the collapse of the bldg?

This also goes against any possible CD theory you or any others may have. Are you going to adjust your theory accordingly?

[T.A.M.]

I am not a moron. I find problems with nist report. David Griscom is not a moron and he finds problems with nist report. Gordon Ross is not a moron,Hugo Bachmann, PhD
Jörg Schneider,James R. Carr, PhD, PE ,Mario Fontana,Ted Muga,William Rice,Charles N. Pegelow all are very highly educated people and not morons all have issues with the unscientific nist report.
No call me a moron but when highly eduacted people agree on something it takes more than somebody who calls people morons on posts to make me change my mind.

If you are alleging that the NIST report was not scientific, then I have to agree with AZCat...you either have NO IDEA what scientific means, or you are using the term "unscientific" incorrectly, and need to reclarify/restate.

Some of those other people you have mentioned, while perhaps having IQs and Education to remove them from the "moron" category, are blinded by hate for the USG, and blinded by paranoia, to the point where their opinions are useless through bias.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

lisabob2:

point out he problems you have with the NIST report then...prove it to us. Show us where it is wrong and why.

And be careful, enough people here have read the works of Hoffman and others sufficiently to tell if you are just quoting his "analysis" or that of another truther...

Give us your own assessment of the report...I wanna know?

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

This also goes against any possible CD theory you or any others may have. Are you going to adjust your theory accordingly?

That's a well played card, but this thread is about Mark's errors. Do you think Mark should eliminate or revise that page?

Whose theory do you accept, Mark Roberts' or NIST's Sunder's?

[lisabob2]

OK, everyone. This thread is for Xena, Swing, RedIbis, and any other Truther who wants to jump in here.

For the purposes of this thread, we'll assume that I am a fencesitter on all things 9/11. I stand willing to be persuaded on any matter.

What I would like to see is independent confirmation of an error that Mark Roberts has made. That is, I want to see just exactly where he's gone wrong. It's very simple, really; just say "Mark Roberts said X (link), but the truth is actually Y(link)."

I will accept no opinion pieces; I'm a skeptic after all. I want to see verifiable facts. Anything posted will be checked for accuracy and context.

Go to it. I'm waiting.
You compare building collapses during construction as a comparision to 9-11. In using pic of collapse you say that debris "clearly falling faster than the rest of the building." How clearly is it when you can't see top of building because of huge dust clouds? the debris could be stuff that started falling before collapse or it could have been blown out by explosions and started again before collapse. You have called Steven Jones science the worst you have seen, how do you know more about the scientific method than Jones? He has looked at evidence, done tests, and came to a hypothsis, how is that "the worst science you have seen? That in itself a useless statement especially since with no qualifications yourself how much weight should we give your opinion?
How can any reasonable person take your opinion over somebody like David Griscom? You make statements, gets documents & pics from goverment sources why should we trust anything that comes from such a obviously corrupt source?
Why doesn't 911 myths have a scientific back & forth like journalof911studies? Have you read Greening & Ross at journal? Thats how we should be debate the issues, no name calling no personal attacks, just opinions on the evidence and complicated mathamatical equations. Thats how mature educated people discuss issues. 911myths also states that Leslie Robertson was chief engineer of towers, when it was John Skilling. Robertson clearly worked under Skilling.

[DGM]

I don't know let's ask him.

Gravy do you plan to revise your paper to reflect this new statement.
Originally Posted by RedIbis
Here's hoping three times is a charm:

In Part III of WTC Lies, you have a page entitled: "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

What follows is an impressive one page presentation, complete with numerous fuel tanker pics, compiled to convince the reader that diesel could have in fact sustained the fires which brought the bldg down.

This past week on this recorded conference call, available here Sunder quite clearly states the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by “normal bldg fires”

“not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines”

“or from fuel fires due to fuel that was in the D(?) tanks that was in the bldg.”

So Mark, will you change your paper? eliminate the page? Reconsider your hypothesis that diesel fuel fed fires caused the collapse of the bldg?

Now it's your turn:

Will you revise your view on controlled demolition.

[RedIbis]

lisabob2:

point out he problems you have with the NIST report then...prove it to us. Show us where it is wrong and why.

And be careful, enough people here have read the works of Hoffman and others sufficiently to tell if you are just quoting his "analysis" or that of another truther...

Give us your own assessment of the report...I wanna know?

TAM:)

TAM, you know better. There are long, detailed threads on the shortcomings of the NIST report. And you're right, a lot of people here are very familiar with Hoffman, as well as NIST. Is all criticism of the NIST report simply the ramblings of "truthers"? Nope, this criticism is damn legitimate.

You're just picking on the new kid. Some of which may be deserved considering the almost complete lack of proper grammar, punctuation and proofreading.