Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[jhunter1163]

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.

[Drudgewire]

:popcorn1

[StickMan2008]

The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

Informal logic is no substitute for substantive discussion of reasonably questioned anomalies of the most significant event of the 21st century.


Mark Roberts, just like the kings of yellow journalism at Popular Mechanics, presents a couple of nefarious half truths from Loose Change, refutes them, and considers the entire investigative 9/11 movement debunked.


Or he cherry picks a couple of points from men like David Ray Griffin, calls himself refuting them with special pleading, appeal to anonymous/unqualified authority, and considers everything in totality of DRG and the investigative movement debunked.


You see the funny thing is these sophist pretend that the entire investigative movement of 9/11 is based off the idea that it was a controlled demolition.


That is not even close to true. All that would have to be proved in a court of law was that people in positions of significant influence were criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and participated in a cover-up by methods such as spoliation.


The debunkers love to focus on the speculations and divert attention away from smoking gun facts.


For instance, they love to focus on how it's speculation if whether a 707 could do comparable damage to a 767 (although if you have a fundamental grasp of science you could figure this out with a kinetic energy formula. That and the fact that the building was designed to take SEVERAL 707s which is more than comparable to a single 767)

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

Which would be consistent with the fact that it was reported on radios as isolated pockets of fire that could have been knocked down with a couple of water hoses.

Would have been consistent with the fact that most of the dominant substance out of those towers after the initial fireball is DARK SMOKE which is consistent with an oxygen deprived fire.

If a building is engulfed in flames, that dark black smoke would have been replaced with some bright orange flames.


Yet even in the history of architecture buildings that have had fires with much more heat with much longer durability, have not even begin to affect the structural integrity of the steel as witnessed in 9/11.

And worst of all, the most recent expert explanation we have for all of this, only explains teh collapse up to the initiation.

When although the initiation was unprecedented, it isn't nearly as big of a mystery as what followed which are activities that would explained a lot easier if they didn't have such a limited scope on their hypothesis.

[defaultdotxbe]

The debunkers love to focus on the speculations and divert attention away from smoking gun facts.
sorry to derail the thread but why do you place blame for this on the debunkers? arent the folks peddling the speculations just as (if not more so) guilty of "diverting attention?"

[TriskettheKid]

You know, I've noticed that you never actually make an argument, Stick.

Why is that?

[16.5]

Wow, first post out of the box and stickman hangs a litany of completely debunked nonsense on the Board.

That has got to hurt the Twoof Movement.

/every point worthless

[Gravy]

I can think of a couple of minor errors in my Loose Change Guide. Since CurtC did the HTML and hosted it, I didn't want to bother him with changes unless it was something important. I had only been looking into 9/11 conspiracy claims for 2-3 weeks when I wrote that. I had started a major revision of that guide last year after "Loose Change Second Edition Recut" came out, but stopped when it reached 250 pages. It was taking too much time, the LC craze was winding down, and I didn't think many people would read it anyway.

I made an error a few days ago that RedIbis corrected. I had posted that a guy named James Barrett was a north tower basement witness who didn't notice any bombs or anything unusual going on. He was actually a witness to no bombs in the south tower basement. I thanked RedIbis for the correction.

Yesterday I posted something about Operation Northwoods that was inaccurate. Brainster and gumboot corrected me, and I thanked them.

Yesterday R. Mackey corrected me about the size of Okanogan County, Washington. I thanked him and wrote to the county website's administrator to have the incorrect information changed.

I debunk myself several times a day. Much of what I initially believe is wrong, and gets corrected with research.

[Undesired Walrus]

For instance, they love to focus on how it's speculation if whether a 707 could do comparable damage to a 767 (although if you have a fundamental grasp of science you could figure this out with a kinetic energy formula. That and the fact that the building was designed to take SEVERAL 707s which is more than comparable to a single 767)

There is indeed a quote to support your claim. However, you seem to miss the concept that Leslie Robertson, who designed it for an impact from a 707, does not buy into your conspiracy theory. More than that, a 767 has a much more impressive wingspan, carrying fuel which can spread over several floors (given that they hit at an angle), and given the velocity they were impacting at, the fireproofing is simply blown off. A 707 is not capable of that, nor several.

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

You see them jumping to their certain death too. Lots of them.

Which would be consistent with the fact that it was reported on radios as isolated pockets of fire that could have been knocked down with a couple of water hoses.

The old 'couple of lines' quote.

This was once, on the lowest floor of impact. They are talking about one floor.

One floor.

One floor.

At the lowest point.

Look above it.

Would have been consistent with the fact that most of the dominant substance out of those towers after the initial fireball is DARK SMOKE which is consistent with an oxygen deprived fire.

http://82.153.160.104/blog/wp-content/DSC04820Large.JPG

And worst of all, the most recent expert explanation we have for all of this, only explains teh collapse up to the initiation.

NIST have no reason to go further. That's not their job.

[Bell]

<snip>

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

<snip>

Oh my oh my... What a bright stick figure we have here.

ETA: *puts Stickfigure on ignore*

[ConspiRaider]

[/Twoofer Mode]

Mark says he is the Blueberry Tart King but the truth is Blueberry Tarts Sing. Hardly any musical accompaniment necessary, very sweet voices.

How could a Blueberry Tart be a monarch? Besides the crown would always get dirty, and blueberry is a hella stainer. If a Blueberry Tart King made a decree nobody could read the friggin' thing. It'd have so many stains on it, you'd have thought it was Valerie Plame's CIA-redacted book.

Factual Error, m'kay?

[/Twoofer Mode]

[jhunter1163]

I seem to remember someone here having a picture of one of the Towers with fire in every window on one floor. Would whoever has that mind terribly posting it in this thread?

[Bell]

I seem to remember someone here having a picture of one of the Towers with fire in every window on one floor. Would whoever has that mind terribly posting it in this thread?

:(

http://i.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931731.91102.jpg

http://k43.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931732.91103.jpg

[LashL]

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.

The errors... [snipped to remove regurgitation of the same old crap without a single link]


The instructions were pretty simple, Stickman. Can you not provide any evidence at all in keeping with those simple instructions set out in the OP?

[Drudgewire]

The instructions were pretty simple, Stickman. Can you not provide any evidence at all in keeping with those simple instructions set out in the OP?
AD STRAWMANUM!!











...or something...







:whistling

[jhunter1163]

Can't see the pics, Bell. Not that I much want to, but Stick seems to think the fires were localized.

[16.5]

The instructions were pretty simple, Stickman. Can you not provide any evidence at all in keeping with those simple instructions set out in the OP?

It also says Twoofers Only. So by posting here you are a Twoofer! Ha! I ran circles around you logically!

Wait.... perhaps I did not think my cunning post all the way through.

[Bell]

Can't see the pics, Bell. Not that I much want to,

Try these links (if you want to):

http://i.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931731.91102.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931732.91103.jpg

but Stick seems to think the fires were localized.

I get so fed up with that "two isolated pockets of fire" argument. How ignorant can one be?

[Drudgewire]

Try these links (if you want to):

http://i.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931731.91102.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931732.91103.jpg

It gives a "forbidden" message. :(

[Bell]

It gives a "forbidden" message. :(

Weird... :confused:

You can find the pictures in this gallery:

http://www.pbase.com/bankst/911_gallery

If that doesn't work, I don't know what would.

[1337m4n]

The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

You see the funny thing is these sophist pretend that the entire investigative movement of 9/11 is based off the idea that it was a controlled demolition.


That is not even close to true. All that would have to be proved in a court of law was that people in positions of significant influence were criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and participated in a cover-up by methods such as spoliation.

Then why does the Truth Movement put so much focus on the controlled demolition theories?

[jhunter1163]

That link works. :(

Those sure as hell don't look like isolated fires to me.

[bynmdsue]

http://www.pbase.com/bankst/image/35931732

[Gravy]

That link works. :(

Those sure as hell don't look like isolated fires to me.

"We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it's pretty much, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn't think we would come out of this unscathed at all. It was just too enormous." –FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi (PDF (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110142.PDF))


"It was the most unbelievable sight I ever saw, up until that point.

I had been in some very busy units during my time in the fire department. I broke in, in Engine 46 and Ladder 27 in the South Bronx when the South Bronx was burning down. I was in Rescue 3, which was extremely busy; they covered the Bronx and Harlem. And then as a lieutenant, I was in the Lower East Side when that was burning down. As a captain, I was in Chinatown. I saw some unbelievable fires in Chinatown.

What I saw pales in comparison [sic] to anything else I had seen previously." –FDNY Captain Jay Jonas (http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm)

[scissorhands]

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.


There are other despicable arguments put forward by Twoofers, but this one really takes the biscuit.
I still cant believe how they cant see just how offensive this is.
People were throwing themselves out of windows to a certain death to avoid the conditions in that building.
They gathered where they could to avoid the heat and smoke and waved forlornly for a rescue that never came.
That this is used as an argument for isolated and minor fires on those floors really shows what kind of sociopaths make up the "truth movement".

[pomeroo]

The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

Informal logic is no substitute for substantive discussion of reasonably questioned anomalies of the most significant event of the 21st century.


Mark Roberts, just like the kings of yellow journalism at Popular Mechanics, presents a couple of nefarious half truths from Loose Change, refutes them, and considers the entire investigative 9/11 movement debunked.


Or he cherry picks a couple of points from men like David Ray Griffin, calls himself refuting them with special pleading, appeal to anonymous/unqualified authority, and considers everything in totality of DRG and the investigative movement debunked.


You see the funny thing is these sophist pretend that the entire investigative movement of 9/11 is based off the idea that it was a controlled demolition.


That is not even close to true. All that would have to be proved in a court of law was that people in positions of significant influence were criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and participated in a cover-up by methods such as spoliation.


The debunkers love to focus on the speculations and divert attention away from smoking gun facts.


For instance, they love to focus on how it's speculation if whether a 707 could do comparable damage to a 767 (although if you have a fundamental grasp of science you could figure this out with a kinetic energy formula. That and the fact that the building was designed to take SEVERAL 707s which is more than comparable to a single 767)

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

Which would be consistent with the fact that it was reported on radios as isolated pockets of fire that could have been knocked down with a couple of water hoses.

Would have been consistent with the fact that most of the dominant substance out of those towers after the initial fireball is DARK SMOKE which is consistent with an oxygen deprived fire.

If a building is engulfed in flames, that dark black smoke would have been replaced with some bright orange flames.


Yet even in the history of architecture buildings that have had fires with much more heat with much longer durability, have not even begin to affect the structural integrity of the steel as witnessed in 9/11.

And worst of all, the most recent expert explanation we have for all of this, only explains teh collapse up to the initiation.

When although the initiation was unprecedented, it isn't nearly as big of a mystery as what followed which are activities that would explained a lot easier if they didn't have such a limited scope on their hypothesis.


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

[jhunter1163]

Look at picture #4 at that link. That building is 208 feet on a side. 208 feet of flames, and that wasn't even the side the plane hit.

The idea that those fires were "isolated" is absolutely mind-boggling.

I think we can conclude that Stick's argument is debunked. Any other Truther care to try pointing out where Mark went wrong?

[Mancman]

If a building is engulfed in flames, that dark black smoke would have been replaced with some bright orange flames.


Yeh, gosh. Imagine if we had seen scenes like this on 9/11?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252462f1fb5349c7.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252460ac0c35d142.jpg

Thank god we have you crack researchers on the case. You're saving humanity. Bless.

[LashL]

It also says Twoofers Only. So by posting here you are a Twoofer! Ha! I ran circles around you logically!

Wait.... perhaps I did not think my cunning post all the way through.

Cue music...

Reviewing the Situation (http://www.zinzang.com/music/Reviewing%20the%20Situation-911%20The%20Musical.mp3)

(from the 9/11 The Musical thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3167925&postcount=323))

"I think I'd better think it out again..."

:dl:

[alexg]

Yeh, gosh. Imagine if we had seen scenes like this on 9/11?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252462f1fb5349c7.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252460ac0c35d142.jpg

Thank god we have you crack researchers on the case. You're saving humanity. Bless.

Oops. Looks like the building was really on fire after all. Your're gonna have to get on the stick stick. So far you've presented zip and demonstrated ignorance of even the most basic facts.

I trust you see the orange?

[FactCheck]

The two pockets of isolated fires argument is the most despicable a truther can make. They take the last words from a dead, HEROIC fireman to prop up their conspiracy story. Little makes me more mad than those few words. It shows just how low the conspiracy industry will go to make a few dollars.

http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm

e1g3OAOiOP0

And just so you truthers know, I investigted this issue myself over 2 years ago. This is not part of some "official" anything. If I could debunk this nonsense I have to wonder why the "Scholars" couldn't.

[Bell]

And just so you truthers know, I investigted this issue myself over 2 years ago. This is not part of some "official" anything. If I could debunk this nonsense I have to wonder why the "Scholars" couldn't.

Troofers are not interested in facts. Why do you think they keep up bringing the same debunked and rebunked crap over and over and over again?

[tomwaits]

Now when I think of truthers, I think of Jim Garrison. Garrison bullied, bribed, and created witnesses to justify his claims of a JFK conspiracy involving David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, yet I still think he thought he was doing some good. It really never occurred to him that he was completely perverting the justice system and making a complete mockery of himself. To him, faulty and imaginary evidence was just a method to get to the "truth".

[jhunter1163]

Now when I think of truthers, I think of Jim Garrison. Garrison bullied, bribed, and created witnesses to justify his claims of a JFK conspiracy involving David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, yet I still think he thought he was doing some good. It really never occurred to him that he was completely perverting the justice system and making a complete mockery of himself. To him, faulty and imaginary evidence was just a method to get to the "truth".

And to carry the analogy further, Garrison didn't care how much pain and destruction he caused along the way. To him, the end justified the means. Just like today's 9/11 Twoofers.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

Informal logic is no substitute for substantive discussion of reasonably questioned anomalies of the most significant event of the 21st century.


Mark Roberts, just like the kings of yellow journalism at Popular Mechanics, presents a couple of nefarious half truths from Loose Change, refutes them, and considers the entire investigative 9/11 movement debunked.


Or he cherry picks a couple of points from men like David Ray Griffin, calls himself refuting them with special pleading, appeal to anonymous/unqualified authority, and considers everything in totality of DRG and the investigative movement debunked.


You see the funny thing is these sophist pretend that the entire investigative movement of 9/11 is based off the idea that it was a controlled demolition.


That is not even close to true. All that would have to be proved in a court of law was that people in positions of significant influence were criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and participated in a cover-up by methods such as spoliation.


The debunkers love to focus on the speculations and divert attention away from smoking gun facts.


For instance, they love to focus on how it's speculation if whether a 707 could do comparable damage to a 767 (although if you have a fundamental grasp of science you could figure this out with a kinetic energy formula. That and the fact that the building was designed to take SEVERAL 707s which is more than comparable to a single 767)

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

Which would be consistent with the fact that it was reported on radios as isolated pockets of fire that could have been knocked down with a couple of water hoses.

Would have been consistent with the fact that most of the dominant substance out of those towers after the initial fireball is DARK SMOKE which is consistent with an oxygen deprived fire.

If a building is engulfed in flames, that dark black smoke would have been replaced with some bright orange flames.


Yet even in the history of architecture buildings that have had fires with much more heat with much longer durability, have not even begin to affect the structural integrity of the steel as witnessed in 9/11.

And worst of all, the most recent expert explanation we have for all of this, only explains teh collapse up to the initiation.

When although the initiation was unprecedented, it isn't nearly as big of a mystery as what followed which are activities that would explained a lot easier if they didn't have such a limited scope on their hypothesis.

You appear to have disasterbated all over your computer screen.

Would you like a towel?

[chillzero]

jhunter, if you want to try this again with a moderated thread to ensure that the very simple instructions you laid out in the OP are followed, please let me know. I suspect it would sit at the OP and drop off the front page due to lack of response.

In response to the discussion about whether people were burning inside the tower or not, I was almost going to ask if any of the fallen bodies had been examined, and found to have burned (as well as the obvious damage), but it didn't take me too long to realise why this was a stupid question. And then I got all upset over this again. Why people think that anyone would jump at that distance without damn good reason really escapes me. Stickman - why do you think anyone would jump like that?

[RedIbis]

Why would I participate in a thread that refers to me as a "twoofer" or "truther"?

If the OP is sincere and wishes to catalog the errors that the preeminent researcher on this site has made, I suggest you begin with a bit of respect and drop the silly labels.

I've heard every possible rationale for why it's ok for the regulars here to use labels and none of them inspire productive debate. Let me know when you wish to treat your opponent in debate with a basic level of respect and I'll participate with civility and accuracy.

[chillzero]

Actually, I meant to add something to that effect in my post also, but got sidetracked as explained.

I agree that to request a debate honestly, it is better to avoid slang terms, etc.

[e^n]

Why would I participate in a thread that refers to me as a "twoofer" or "truther"?

I'm pretty sure truther is a self imposed label and I have discussed this with you before haven't I?

edit: also of course labels are really a minor issue, people have been insulting Gravy for quite some time so why don't we just put aside the pettyness and list some errors?

[RedIbis]

I'm pretty sure truther is a self imposed label and I have discussed this with you before haven't I?

Are you saying that I've referred to myself this way? Please quote me or post the thread where this occurred.

[e^n]

Are you saying that I've referred to myself this way? Please quote me or post the thread where this occurred.

You are a member if only by opinion of a particular group who identify themselves as 'truthers'. If you want specific exclusion then fine I will do my best to remember never to call you a truther but regardless this thread was not aimed soley at you.

Why do you find such a label so offensive, and why are you resorting to indignation? Just post some errors Gravy has made please :(

[Billdave2]

In response to the discussion about whether people were burning inside the tower or not, I was almost going to ask if any of the fallen bodies had been examined, and found to have burned (as well as the obvious damage), but it didn't take me too long to realise why this was a stupid question. And then I got all upset over this again. Why people think that anyone would jump at that distance without damn good reason really escapes me. Stickman - why do you think anyone would jump like that?

[sarcasm]Don't you see! They were in on it too! The NWO bribed them to jump.[end sarcasm]

Now I have to go and wash my hands from typing that.

[Totovader]

[...]

Informal logic is no substitute for substantive discussion of reasonably questioned anomalies of the most significant event of the 21st century.

[...]


Just out of curiosity, how do you know that your statement here is true? And- more to the point- what is this "substantive discussion" supposed to consist of?

[Totovader]

Why would I participate in a thread that refers to me as a "twoofer" or "truther"?

If the OP is sincere and wishes to catalog the errors that the preeminent researcher on this site has made, I suggest you begin with a bit of respect and drop the silly labels.

I've heard every possible rationale for why it's ok for the regulars here to use labels and none of them inspire productive debate. Let me know when you wish to treat your opponent in debate with a basic level of respect and I'll participate with civility and accuracy.

Appeal to pity.

You can ignore the labels and still answer the question.

(In my eyes, by using this type of an argument and avoiding the OP, you're successfully labeling yourself)

[RedIbis]

Appeal to pity.

You can ignore the labels and still answer the question.

(In my eyes, by using this type of an argument and avoiding the OP, you're successfully labeling yourself)

You must have missed the first sentence and title of the OP. I was being directly addressed.

If you're going to refer to logical fallacies than you should recognize the use of labels as base ad hominem.

[Hellbound]

If you're going to refer to logical fallacies than you should recognize the use of labels as base ad hominem.

No.

No, they are not ad hominem, and you would understand this if you took the time to research.

I can call you an idiotic moron all day (or could, if the membership agreement didn't preclude it) and it's not ad hominem, it's simply insult.

Now, if I made the argument that "You're wrong because your'e an idiotic moron", then that would be ad hominem.

Likewise, if I tried to put forth the arguement that "Your arguments are invalid because you're a truther", then that would be ad hominem.

However, reversing that...for example "You're so wrong you must be an idiot", is not an ad hominem.

I am absolutely sick and tired of people (on all sides) tossing around "Ad hominem" instead of insult and "Appeal to authority" when people quote recognized experts in a relevent field.

It does not make you sound smart or educated. It does not help your argument, It makes you look like a whiny wanna-be, using big words he doesn't understand in an attempt to try and puff himself up. Like those frilled lizards witht he goofy run.

Sheesh, learn the fallacies before you go tossing them around.

[RedIbis]

It does not make you sound smart or educated. It does not help your argument, It makes you look like a whiny wanna-be, using big words he doesn't understand in an attempt to try and puff himself up. Like those frilled lizards witht he goofy run.

.

Try to get your pronouns in order so that when you use silly ad hominem name calling, you're not so convoluted.

[cloudshipsrule]

Informal logic is no substitute for substantive discussion of reasonably questioned anomalies of the most significant event of the 21st century.

Britney Spears crotch shot?

[Hellbound]

Try to get your pronouns in order so that when you use silly ad hominem name calling, you're not so convoluted.

That is also not ad hominem. That was simply insult.

If I said you were wrong becauase you're a whiny wanna-be, that would be ad hom. Instead, I said that your continued mis-use of logical terms makes you a whiny wanna-be, which is a personal opinion based upon a review of the available evidence.

ETA: Nice description of ad hominem id available here (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html).
Example from there:


Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."Gee, that sounds familiar...

ETA2: Although, I suppose you could go with the Wiki definition, which includes pretty much any complaint against a person as an ad hominem (I disagree with this, but I do recognize that some people have a different interpretation). However, if we accept that definition, then RedIbis's attacks against posters using labels, instead of addressing the argument, is in itself an Ad Hominem.

Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Myriad]

The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

Informal logic is no substitute for substantive discussion of reasonably questioned anomalies of the most significant event of the 21st century.


Mark Roberts, just like the kings of yellow journalism at Popular Mechanics, presents a couple of nefarious half truths from Loose Change, refutes them, and considers the entire investigative 9/11 movement debunked.


Or he cherry picks a couple of points from men like David Ray Griffin, calls himself refuting them with special pleading, appeal to anonymous/unqualified authority, and considers everything in totality of DRG and the investigative movement debunked.


You see the funny thing is these sophist pretend that the entire investigative movement of 9/11 is based off the idea that it was a controlled demolition.


That is not even close to true. All that would have to be proved in a court of law was that people in positions of significant influence were criminally negligent in preventing the attacks and participated in a cover-up by methods such as spoliation.


The debunkers love to focus on the speculations and divert attention away from smoking gun facts.


For instance, they love to focus on how it's speculation if whether a 707 could do comparable damage to a 767 (although if you have a fundamental grasp of science you could figure this out with a kinetic energy formula. That and the fact that the building was designed to take SEVERAL 707s which is more than comparable to a single 767)

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

Which would be consistent with the fact that it was reported on radios as isolated pockets of fire that could have been knocked down with a couple of water hoses.

Would have been consistent with the fact that most of the dominant substance out of those towers after the initial fireball is DARK SMOKE which is consistent with an oxygen deprived fire.

If a building is engulfed in flames, that dark black smoke would have been replaced with some bright orange flames.


Yet even in the history of architecture buildings that have had fires with much more heat with much longer durability, have not even begin to affect the structural integrity of the steel as witnessed in 9/11.

And worst of all, the most recent expert explanation we have for all of this, only explains teh collapse up to the initiation.

When although the initiation was unprecedented, it isn't nearly as big of a mystery as what followed which are activities that would explained a lot easier if they didn't have such a limited scope on their hypothesis.


To paraphrase the Truthers' favorite leader: "As you know, you go to debate with the arguments you have. They're not the evidence you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Respectfully,
Myriad

[16.5]

Why would I participate in a thread that refers to me as a "twoofer" or "truther"?

Is it to late to say I knew that "twoofer" reference in the headline was going to be used as an excuse not to participate in this thread?

But perhaps Red Ibis is correct, perhaps a bit of incivility is sufficient to derail this thread (I would also say derail the search for the Truth, but perhaps that is also unkind).

As such, I am sure that no one would object if this original thread was moved to AAH, and a new thread, perhaps by one of those that question the Official Conspiracy Theory could start a fresh thread.

What say, Red Ibis? Have at it!

[Dave Rogers]

jhunter, if you want to try this again with a moderated thread to ensure that the very simple instructions you laid out in the OP are followed, please let me know. I suspect it would sit at the OP and drop off the front page due to lack of response.

How about a moderated sticky thread, so that anyone who wanted to claim Mark had made errors would be able to check the thread before posting?

Dave

[jhunter1163]

I apologize for the incivility in the thread title. If it's possible to edit the title to whatever label the official-story questioners would prefer, then please do so.

My challenge remains, though; show me a factual error Mark has made. I suspect that Chill is correct that there will be little to no response to this challenge.

[DavidJames]

I apologize for the incivility in the thread title. If it's possible to edit the title to whatever label the official-story questioners would prefer, then please do so. I believe an apology is thoughtful but not necessary. The responses by Red prove CTists like him have no interest in honest debate. He shows up and whines about being called a name. Seriously, he has no qualms about accusing people of mass murder, but the poor child is insulted when he feels he was called a name, pathetic.

[Brainster]

I debunk myself several times a day. Much of what I initially believe is wrong, and gets corrected with research.

Geniuses and fools alike make errors, but the smart man learns from his mistakes.

[Unsecured Coins]

I read that on a fortune cookie once. You eat at Tsao's too?

[jhunter1163]

Well, I felt that if apologizing would remove an impediment to getting at those factual errors, it would be worth it.

So, SwingDangler, RedIbis, I stand ready to be persuaded of the error of Mark's ways. Let's have some links.

[StickMan2008]

Then why does the Truth Movement put so much focus on the controlled demolition theories?

And why is the worst investigative documentary of 9/11 presented as the face of that movement?


Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that straw man attack on the 9/11 truth movement is based off of making LC the face of the movement.


If anything, an eye opener for people should have been the story of the Jersey Girls in 9/11 Press for Truth which is an exponentially better documentary. And not just because of the appeal to emotion, but because the story of these women shows you how an investigation of any kind into 9/11 was clearly not wanted by the Bush administration. And when they were finally pushed into a corner of having one, they put Bush insiders to conduct it.

And you see how the questions arose and how they were avoided. You see a brilliant timeline of events that are not answered as well.

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime is another brilliant film that stays completely away from CD. It's all about the criminal negligence angle which is a lot harder to deny than it is to deny the science behind 9/11 when even if it is a CD, faux scientists can deceive the public.


The Truth Movement is a joke. Maybe it didn't start out that way, but the fact that Loose Change is the face of it, destroys any hope whatsoever.


No way that is by coincidence BTW that out of all the dozens of documentaries the absolute worst one made by incompetent college kids is the face.

Gotta keep the incompetence angle going.

Incompetent President to Incompetent college kids.


So anyone who sees anyone trying to look at facts surrounding 9/11 assumes that person thinks that a couple of college kids solved the case.


Brilliant plan for whoever promoted that movie

[DGM]

And why is the worst investigative documentary of 9/11 presented as the face of that movement?


Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that straw man attack on the 9/11 truth movement is based off of making LC the face of the movement.


If anything, an eye opener for people should have been the story of the Jersey Girls in 9/11 Press for Truth which is an exponentially better documentary. And not just because of the appeal to emotion, but because the story of these women shows you how an investigation of any kind into 9/11 was clearly not wanted by the Bush administration. And when they were finally pushed into a corner of having one, they put Bush insiders to conduct it.

And you see how the questions arose and how they were avoided. You see a brilliant timeline of events that are not answered as well.

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime is another brilliant film that stays completely away from CD. It's all about the criminal negligence angle which is a lot harder to deny than it is to deny the science behind 9/11 when even if it is a CD, faux scientists can deceive the public.


The Truth Movement is a joke. Maybe it didn't start out that way, but the fact that Loose Change is the face of it, destroys any hope whatsoever.


No way that is by coincidence BTW that out of all the dozens of documentaries the absolute worst one made by incompetent college kids is the face.

Gotta keep the incompetence angle going.

Incompetent President to Incompetent college kids.


So anyone who sees anyone trying to look at facts surrounding 9/11 assumes that person thinks that a couple of college kids solved the case.


Brilliant plan for whoever promoted that movie


Question. How many investigations into 9/11

have been done?

[StickMan2008]

Just out of curiosity, how do you know that your statement here is true? And- more to the point- what is this "substantive discussion" supposed to consist of?

Well I think the title of one article says it all

9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis
How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorize Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition

IOW, people are so caught up in their belief system when it comes to 9/11 whether if it's pro-OS or against-OS that they refuse to objectively look at anything that could qualify as evidence for the opposing side.

Instead of addressing it, they meet it with informal logic to avoid discussing it.


Personally, I do not find myself doing this. Because if someone really wants to find the truth, they will objectively look at something that could prove one of their previous beliefs wrong.


For instance, I used to hear how no Muslim names were on the passenger manifests. But I go back and look and I find that's not true.

I used to quote Woodrow Wilson about the Fed Reserve, but since I can't cite that, I no longer use it.


I like this site because it forces you to use cited proof which helps you present more factual information.


All Im saying is mathematically there is a chance that either side is true

It's mathematically possible that

A)Government displayed competence/immorality to pull off 9/11 and used their PR Machine as the media to cover it up

B)It's possible government was that incompetent and all the anomalies surrounding the event are just coincidences


It's just IMO that A a bigger possibility than B. But Im not going to go as far as to say there is no mathematical possibility the other side could be true because Im still disseminating fact from fiction.


But the other side IMO is so stubborn they won't even admit it as a mathematical possibility and they refuse to objectively look at any information that would go against the competence/morality angle.

[jhunter1163]

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime is another brilliant film that stays completely away from CD. It's all about the criminal negligence angle which is a lot harder to deny than it is to deny the science behind 9/11 when even if it is a CD, faux scientists can deceive the public.


This type of thing is typical of the "New Truth" movement, which is running to distance themselves as far from LC as possible, mainly because everything in LC has had the snot debunked out of it. The "Old Truth" is dying fast; hardly anything is heard from Avery and crew anymore.

The "New Truth" is kind of "LIHOP-lite", or, as TAM would put it, LIHOI. It focuses on the negligence and foulups and uncertain responses of that day and sneers, "Well, isn't that conveeeeeeeenient?". It's still wrong, but much harder to debunk because it focuses on imputing motives rather than actual facts.

[jhunter1163]

Stick:

I'll concede that at least some of the LIHOP scenarios are possible. That doesn't mean I think they're likely; in fact, they're extremely unlikely. But they are possible.

[StickMan2008]

This type of thing is typical of the "New Truth" movement, which is running to distance themselves as far from LC as possible, mainly because everything in LC has had the snot debunked out of it. The "Old Truth" is dying fast; hardly anything is heard from Avery and crew anymore.

The "New Truth" is kind of "LIHOP-lite", or, as TAM would put it, LIHOI. It focuses on the negligence and foulups and uncertain responses of that day and sneers, "Well, isn't that conveeeeeeeenient?". It's still wrong, but much harder to debunk because it focuses on imputing motives rather than actual facts.

It's much harder to debunk because it's not a walking straw man.

Loose Change is a joke.

Not because it has been debunked but the manner in which it was presented.

The speculations that Avery makes for instance about a missile being fired in a frame before the tower hits is just freaking ridiculous.

I think he goes as far as to say the real passengers were dumped across an ocean or something.

Loose Change has ZERO smoking gun facts.


People haven't gravitated away from it because it's been debunked, they have gravitated away from it because they are starting to realize it's by far the worst piece of trash that could be the face of the Truth movement as they could find.


That movie is solely responsible for the image of the movement.


Everyone thinks a bunch of teenagers with wild imaginations are the only people who question the official story and they only do so with absurd speculation revolving around the planes and buildings.


The ONLY decent half truth in that movie is the reference to Operation Northwoods but it's at the very beginning and it doesn't make up for the 90 minutes of straw man.

[StickMan2008]

Stick:

I'll concede that at least some of the LIHOP scenarios are possible. That doesn't mean I think they're likely; in fact, they're extremely unlikely. But they are possible.

And that's all it takes to be a free thinker.

Admit the other side as a possibility no matter how vehemently opposed you are to it.

[DGM]

Stickman:
In light of this statement
Personally, I do not find myself doing this. Because if someone really wants to find the truth, they will objectively look at something that could prove one of their previous beliefs wrong.
And the fact that several investigations into 9/11 were being done by the government. We shouldn't see any more statements like this from you.

And not just because of the appeal to emotion, but because the story of these women shows you how an investigation of any kind into 9/11 was clearly not wanted by the Bush administration.

[Swing Dangler]

Try these links (if you want to):
http://i.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931731.91102.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931732.91103.jpg
I get so fed up with that "two isolated pockets of fire" argument. How ignorant can one be?

Now this is quite comical.

You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires, but accept without question the statements of firefighters about WTC 7 despite the visual record of WTC 7.

The hypocrisies of debunkers is simply amazing.

And now for a 10 second error that I found in Gravy's paper:
This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling –>damage from elevator stopping (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>heavy smoke (possibly pushed down by initial blast, possibly drawn down by falling elevator, or both –> fireball coming down shaft.

Now lets examine the facts from Arturo Griffith as found in the CNN transcripts found here:

A. GRIFFITH: Well, I was on my way from B-2 to 49th floor. And as I took off, it was amount it was a matter of seconds -- five, six, seven seconds, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my said and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening.

When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator, and I think I'm sure that that was what broke my leg. And then they had another explosion and the panel that threw me, you know, against the wall, and I guess I was unconscious for a couple of minutes because somebody else was in the elevator with me, and they say that they was trying to get my attention and they didn't get no response from me.
Additional information:
'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.Source: Here (http://web.archive.org/web/20021101235538/http://911digitalarchive.org/seiu/details/54)."
And now for the proper correction from Swing that Gravy should make:

This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling->debris hit top of elevator –>elevator stops->after stopping ,damage from explosion (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>another explosion->panel throws him against the wall->Unconscious or near unconscious->black smoke->sees light-->rescued by someone->tells rescuers of another person in the elevator--> rescuers go after woman and pull her out->seconds later a fireball came down shaft.

Compare that factual account to Gravy:

This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling –>damage from elevator stopping (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>heavy smoke (possibly pushed down by initial blast, possibly drawn down by falling elevator, or both –> fireball coming down shaft.

Notice any changes?

1. Gravy omitted or ignored 2 additional explosions after the initial plane impact that severed the cables.
2. Gravy attributes the damage from an explosion to the elevator stopping not to an explosion as Arturo states.
3. Gravy omits the third explosion in Arturo's account.
4. Gravy omits the second person.
5 Gravy omits the time frame between impact and fireball.
4. Gravy inserts his own thoughts on what happened instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, ie. misrepresentation of the events, omission of other possibilities for black smoke presence, omission of additional explosions.

This little segment alone displays the apparent possible motivation for his paper..not the revelation of facts and truth mind you, but an attempt to spin and distort one man's account in support of the official story.

Do you want more? ;)

[16.5]

Stick:

"People haven't gravitated away from it because it's been debunked, they have gravitated away from it because they are starting to realize it's by far the worst piece of trash that could be the face of the Truth movement as they could find."

That is false. I suggest that you spend some time around the No-Planers, and Kevin Barrett. They are the type of people who say ridiculous things like the raging fires at the WTC were faked, and how could the alleged victims at the Trade Center be exposed to such heat, because people were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

And then they laugh and say, hey look there is Super Woman, immune to the raging heat and ignoring the fact that dozens of people jumped to their deaths. Hahaha!

But you'd never say anything as stupid as that, correct?

[Vincent Vega]

Unless stickman comes up with an acknowledgement that those pictures directly contradict his claims regarding the fire's intensity, I hereby recommend that he placed on global ignore for intellectual crimes against the forum.

[jhunter1163]

Loose Change is a joke.


Well, we're agreed on that.

I like this forum because the posters here challenge you to bring facts to the table.

However, when you're talking about motives for a particular set of circumstances, it's harder for skeptics to accept "conspiracy" as a motive when "incompetence" adequately explains the event.

Ultimately, I don't believe we'll ever be able to completely disprove LIHOP. The trouble is, BushCo are both underhanded and incompetent; therefore, you can't say for sure that they weren't capable of at least looking the other way.

[NobbyNobbs]

It's very simple, really; just say "Mark Roberts said X (link), but the truth is actually Y(link)."



The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

blah blah blah...



So much for "simple".



Much of what I initially believe is wrong, and gets corrected with research.

Don't worry about it, Mark. It happens to everyone. In fact, I thought I was wrong once, but it turns out I was mistaken.

:D

[DGM]

Swing:

Now this is quite comical.

You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires, but accept without question the statements of firefighters about WTC 7 despite the visual record of WTC 7.

The hypocrisies of debunkers is simply amazing.

So how much fire is 2 hand lines worth when its 2 floors below the real action? Do you really think people fall for your junk anymore? Time to hire a new writer.

[16.5]

Swingy

"You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires, but accept without question the statements of firefighters about WTC 7 despite the visual record of WTC 7."

Now this is quite comical.

You know he reached only the 78th floor, and was talking about the 78th floor only, yet you claim 1. he was also talking about the fires above which the visual record show were subject to massive heat and fires; 2. you claim that we are fed up with this statement, as opposed to be being absolutely fed up with dissemblers, such as yourself, that claim that this statement about the 78th floor has anything to do with floors 79 and up. It is cherry picking at its worst, and you are once again guilty of it.

And you spelled hypocrisy wrong.

[jhunter1163]

Well, at last. Here's Swing with an actual claim about Arturo Griffith, to his credit. I'm at work now and can't confirm the accuracy and context of what he's posted, but we've at least got something to work with.

[Swing Dangler]

Swingy

"You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires, but accept without question the statements of firefighters about WTC 7 despite the visual record of WTC 7."

Now this is quite comical.

You know he reached only the 78th floor, and was talking about the 78th floor only, yet you claim 1. he was also talking about the fires above which the visual record show were subject to massive heat and fires; 2. you claim that we are fed up with this statement, as opposed to be being absolutely fed up with dissemblers, such as yourself, that claim that this statement about the 78th floor has anything to do with floors 79 and up. It is cherry picking at its worst, and you are once again guilty of it.
And you spelled hypocrisy wrong.

1. If you would please link to where I claimed he was talking about the fires above the 78th floor.
2. Please link to where I claimed the statement about the 78th floor had everything to do with floors above.
3. Thanks for avoiding the WTC 7 I brought up.
4. And terrific job of avoiding Gravy's nonsense that I pointed out.

So do you accept that debunkers do the same thing with WTC 7?

[Swing Dangler]

Well, at last. Here's Swing with an actual claim about Arturo Griffith, to his credit. I'm at work now and can't confirm the accuracy and context of what he's posted, but we've at least got something to work with.

It is from a CNN transcript. You can't get there from work?

[jhunter1163]

It is from a CNN transcript. You can't get there from work?

Frankly, I'm lucky I can get here. I'll be happy to review this for accuracy and context when I get home. And, for the record, I'm assuming that it is accurate and in context.

[1337m4n]

Why would I participate in a thread that refers to me as a "twoofer" or "truther"?

If the OP is sincere and wishes to catalog the errors that the preeminent researcher on this site has made, I suggest you begin with a bit of respect and drop the silly labels.

I've heard every possible rationale for why it's ok for the regulars here to use labels and none of them inspire productive debate. Let me know when you wish to treat your opponent in debate with a basic level of respect and I'll participate with civility and accuracy.

I must agree with RedIbis. I often allow my frustration to get the best of me, and as satisfying as it is to use condescension, it's not really productive. We should show civility to all those who show civility to us.

But, Red, this only applies to the word "twoofer", which is our own bastardization of "truther". The latter word is accepted by the Truth Movement as a label for who they are. I mean, if you really don't want to be called what the rest of the movement is calling itself, we COULD make a special exception for you, but the point is there should be nothing inherently offensive about "truther".

"Twoofer", on the other hand, is used in a condescending manner. I tend to avoid it myself, though I'm still not as civil as I'd like myself to be.

[16.5]

1. If you would please link to where I claimed he was talking about the fires above the 78th floor.

Uh, right here in this thread: "You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires."

2. Please link to where I claimed the statement about the 78th floor had everything to do with floors above.

You want a link to your post, uh, OK it is up there ^^^

3. Thanks for avoiding the WTC 7 I brought up.

What was that point again? That some unidentified pictures taken from some vantage point don't show fires at WTC7? Is that your point. Really? Yeah, you win then (here comes the cherry picking!)

4. And terrific job of avoiding Gravy's nonsense that I pointed out.

Yes I absolutely admit that I did avoid it. I did think that Gravy will respond to you, if you wish me to address it, I'll defer to Gravy. Am I a bad person for doing that?

"So do you accept that debunkers do the same thing with WTC 7?"

Cherry pick quotes and lie about the extent of the fires in WTC 1, 2, 7? No, but thanks for admitting that the Twoofers do.

[jhunter1163]

Guys, let's be fair. Swing has posted an account of Arturo Griffith's testimony that is different from Mark's and is presumably accurate. Let's examine this, OK?

[Swing Dangler]

Frankly, I'm lucky I can get here. I'll be happy to review this for accuracy and context when I get home. And, for the record, I'm assuming that it is accurate and in context.

Thanks for the assumption. It is accurate and within context.

16.5-You know he reached only the 78th floor, and was talking about the 78th floor only, yet you claim 1. he was also talking about the fires above which the visual record show were subject to massive heat and fires; 2. you claim that we are fed up with this statement, as opposed to be being absolutely fed up with dissemblers, such as yourself, that claim that this statement about the 78th floor has anything to do with floors 79 and up. It is cherry picking at its worst, and you are once again guilty of it.
Back to this, sure I'm aware of what he is describing. Now you need to combine that fact with these:
Granted it is the same floor...
78th floor-"Remembrance of Vijay" - a WTC victim on the 78th floor:

They had to head to the 78th floor elevator lobby. While in the lobby waiting for the elevator with a whole bunch of people, the second plane hit their tower. The lights went out on the floor and many people were hurt, some killed. The emergency lights came on and people were checking to see who was OK. Vijay was apparently unhurt, just covered in dust. He then got a fire extinguisher to put out some of the fires that were on the floor but the fire extinguisher didn't work!Source: Here (http://www.nycstories.com/911/90/92.html)

An account by Stanley Praimnath, a survivor from the 81st floor of WTC 2:
As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. ... Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere. Source: Here (http://www.ambassadoragency.com/client_profile.cfm/cid/29)

"The Ashen Guy" - another survivor from the 81st floor:
"There were about 230 people on the 81st floor and I was one of the last ones out. We took the stairs. There was smoke, but it wasn’t fire smoke, it was dry wall smoke and dust. The fire was above us."Source: Here (http://www.mrbellersneighborhood.com/sec9/theashenguy)

A little further up...
An account by Brian Clark, an 84th floor survivor:
"You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml) The sprinkler system had turned on and had started to do something, but it wasn't doing its job as it should, so there was water sloshing down the stairways. [Nova] (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html)

The office of Euro Brokers on the [B]84th floor:
Most of the company's trading floor there was annihilated. Yet even there — at the bull's-eye of the airplane's impact — other people were alive. [New York Times] (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E6DC153BF935A15756C0A9649C8B 63)

Now 16.5, can you support this claim...You know he reached only the 78th floor, and was talking about the 78th floor only, yet you claim 1. he was also talking about the fires above which the visual record show were subject to massive heat and fires;

Now those floors above the firefighter where those survivors came from you can claim they are wrong about their experience and debunk them as well with some pictures of the interior of the tower showing massive heat and fires?

I'm mean surely you have some evidence that proves these people wrong. If so I would love to see it.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]1. If you would please link to where I claimed he was talking about the fires above the 78th floor.

Uh, right here in this thread: "You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires."
1. Your missing a lot of data there, like me stating the firefighter was talking about the condition of the fire above him.

[QUOTE]2. Please link to where I claimed the statement about the 78th floor had everything to do with floors above. You want a link to your post, uh, OK it is up there ^
Your missing the part where I stated the firefighter was talking about the floor above him. Tsk, tsk. Are you new at this? You can read about other folks above that firefighter in the post below.

3. Thanks for avoiding the WTC 7 I brought up.
What was that point again? That some unidentified pictures taken from some vantage point don't show fires at WTC7? Is that your point. Really? Yeah, you win then (here comes the cherry picking!)

Well at least then you admit that debunkers (in general not all mind you) will accept evidence that favors their position but deny or ignore evidence that does not favor their position.

4. And terrific job of avoiding Gravy's nonsense that I pointed out.

Yes I absolutely admit that I did avoid it. I did think that Gravy will respond to you, if you wish me to address it, I'll defer to Gravy. Am I a bad person for doing that?
He won't respond, he has me on ignore. There is no need to defer to Gravy. Click on the link to his paper, find the quote, compare it to historical record and come to your own conclusion. Are you bad for doing that? Of course not. Is it in the spirit of the thread? No.

"So do you accept that debunkers do the same thing with WTC 7?"

Cherry pick quotes and lie about the extent of the fires in WTC 1, 2, 7? No, but thanks for admitting that the Twoofers do.
Hmmm you just lumped 3 towers into to 1 arguement. The firefighter quote was in regards to the South Tower. The supporting evidence to show it wasn't just cherrypicking by listing other people's near and on the impact floor.
Now if you want to call "cherrypicking" you should show the quote in context and then explain how I "cherrypicked" the quote to support my position when in fact the quote or quotes would not support my position.

My whole point with WTC 7 exercise:
1. You accept firefighter quotes about 7 but ignore the photographic record used to prove some of the quotes are unsubstantiated by the visual record and stand by your position, which you admitted to above.
2. But when a truther uses quotes to support a position you cry foul, cherry picking, etc. etc.

Can I get a can of hypocrisy with your order of bunk?

[SDC]

[quote=16.5;3219612]
1. Your missing a lot of data there, like me stating the firefighter was talking about the condition of the fire above him.
[quote]

Your missing the part where I stated the firefighter was talking about the floor above him. Tsk, tsk. Are you new at this? You can read about other folks above that firefighter in the post below.



Well at least then you admit that debunkers (in general not all mind you) will accept evidence that favors their position but deny or ignore evidence that does not favor their position.


He won't respond, he has me on ignore. There is no need to defer to Gravy. Click on the link to his paper, find the quote, compare it to historical record and come to your own conclusion. Are you bad for doing that? Of course not. Is it in the spirit of the thread? No.

"So do you accept that debunkers do the same thing with WTC 7?"

Hmmm you just lumped 3 towers into to 1 arguement. The firefighter quote was in regards to the South Tower. The supporting evidence to show it wasn't just cherrypicking by listing other people's near and on the impact floor.
Now if you want to call "cherrypicking" you should show the quote in context and then explain how I "cherrypicked" the quote to support my position when in fact the quote or quotes would not support my position.

My whole point with WTC 7 exercise:
1. You accept firefighter quotes about 7 but ignore the photographic record used to prove some of the quotes are unsubstantiated by the visual record and stand by your position, which you admitted to above.
2. But when a truther uses quotes to support a position you cry foul, cherry picking, etc. etc.

Can I get a can of hypocrisy with your order of bunk?

"Cherrypicking" may not be the best term but you (S.Dangler) certainly are just stringing a bunch of stuff together that doesn't advance your argument. Actually, I can't tell whether you've got an argument. You've lost me as to what you are trying to prove with all this. Please explain this sentence:

"1. You accept firefighter quotes about 7 but ignore the photographic record used to prove some of the quotes are unsubstantiated by the visual record and stand by your position, which you admitted to above."

I mean, explain it in a coherent way. Please break the sentence into several distinct clauses or sentences, as the poor thing deserves.

[16.5]

"“I'm mean surely you have some evidence that proves these people wrong. If so I would love to see it."

Wrong? Why would you at all think that they were wrong, I am certain that what they say was correct. Now, lets break a couple down:

Brian Clark, and you bold "84th floor survivor." I assume that you want us to believe that when he saw these flames he was on the 84th floor, but in point of fact, he said he had already descended, and WAS IN THE STAIRWAY. You must acknowledge this, certainly? You don't know where he was, do you?

The 81st floor survivor says he was in the LOBBY when the plane hit. You do understand that, correct?

Stanley Praimnath, a survivor from the 81st floor of WTC 2: “Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department.”

I agree fully with every single thing in that statement.

How you believe that New York Times article helps you is beyond me. People survived for a time after the crashes and the collapse, of that there is no question. Even on the 84th floor.

I can assure you that all floors above 78 were not instantly and completely engulfed in flame, and no one has ever claimed otherwise, and it is disingenuous to even imply that. But you will anyway.

[16.5]

"1. Your (sic) missing a lot of data there, like me stating the firefighter was talking about the condition of the fire above him."

Your (sic) missing the part where I stated the firefighter was talking about the floor above him. Tsk, tsk. Are you new at this?"

Oh man, I can read you like a book. I knew it! You were going to say that your sentence "You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires" was really just a comment only about 78, and not the upper floors! And then you dropped in the "tsk, tsk"! How dare I not know that your comment that “the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires” was only intended to refer to that part of the building that was not subject to massive heat and fires!

I have never seen such pathetic dancing in my life. And you say you are interested in the Truth.

Anyway, as to WTC 7, post the pictures you are talking about here.

[MikeW]

The Clarke quote relates to "somewhere around the 77th floor":

Somewhere around the 77th floor, the stairway walls were cracked, and you could look through the cracks and see flames. They were just quietly licking up, not a roaring inferno. And there was some smoke there, but again I think the stairs were pressurized, pushing the air out so we had less smoke in the stairway than you might imagine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/nyregion/26STOWER.html?pagewanted=7&ei=5070&en=cfd7225a3377482e&ex=1197090000

[AMTMAN]

[QUOTE=16.5;3219612]
[QUOTE]



Well at least then you admit that debunkers (in general not all mind you) will accept evidence that favors their position but deny or ignore evidence that does not favor their position.
Can I get a can of hypocrisy with your order of bunk?

Sounds a lot like what you do Swing. Remember this quote of yours.

The burden of proof is now upon the debunker's shoulders.

< http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85833&page=2 >

Well as soon as the facts came out regarding the original subject you pulled a disappearing act. You didn't even bother to defend the truther side when I statrted the thread bellow.

< http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93401 >

[Swing Dangler]

[quote=16.5;3219612]
"Cherrypicking" may not be the best term but you (S.Dangler) certainly are just stringing a bunch of stuff together that doesn't advance your argument. Actually, I can't tell whether you've got an argument. You've lost me as to what you are trying to prove with all this. Please explain this sentence:

"1. You accept firefighter quotes about 7 but ignore the photographic record used to prove some of the quotes are unsubstantiated by the visual record and stand by your position, which you admitted to above."

I mean, explain it in a coherent way. Please break the sentence into several distinct clauses or sentences, as the poor thing deserves.

Absolutely and fair enough as I appreciate the civility you display!

My original disturbance with the issue started here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3217421#post3217421).
My whole point with this exercise was to show the hypocrisy of some debunkers. Some mind you, not all.

In this case you have a couple of exterior photos used to debunk the comments of a firefighter in the South Tower climbing stairs to put out some isolated pockets of fire. Truthers claim the fire wasn't that bad, couldn't lead to collapse blah blah etc by using this firefighter's statements. Bell is apparently sick of hearing the quotes used to support the truther position and then offers photos to 'debunk' it.

To offer a counter to this logic, I used WTC 7 as an example.
Lots of quotes about the whole building being on fire, every floor, etc, yet the visual record doesn't show this.

1. Some 'debunkers' accept firefighter quotes about 7 but ignore the photographic record used to prove some of the quotes are unsubstantiated by the visual record and stand by your position, which you admitted to above.

2. But when a truther uses quotes to support a position and not visual evidence you cry foul, cherry picking, etc. etc.

The point being: the hypocrisy some debunks use against truthers.

In reality, I was hoping someone might address Gravy's error that I pointed out in my original post. But that keeps getting avoided like the plague.
Does that clear it up?

16.5-

Wrong? Why would you at all think that they were wrong, I am certain that what they say was correct. Now, lets break a couple down:
[QUOTE]
Brian Clark, and you bold "84th floor survivor." I assume that you want us to believe that when he saw these flames he was on the 84th floor, but in point of fact, he said he had already descended, and WAS IN THE STAIRWAY. You must acknowledge this, certainly? You don't know where he was, do you?
ROFLMAO! Uh no, I don't want you to assume anything. He surived the 84th floor impact and fire.
Here is his initial description of the impact.

Brian Clark's office was on the floor where the upper wing of the aircraft hit.
BRIAN CLARK: Our room fell apart at that moment. Complete destruction. For seven to ten seconds there was this enormous sway in the building and it was all one way and I just felt in my heart that oh my gosh, we're going over.
Not a lot of that fire and heat you mentioned in your earlier post. He then descends
He then ...
BRIAN CLARK: So we started down that stairway and we only went three floors. There was a group of seven of us, myself and six others. We met two people that had come up from the floor 80, a heavy set woman and, by comparison, a rather frail male. She said stop, stop, you've got to go up and she laboured up to join us moving very slowly, she was such a big woman. She said you've got to go, you've got to go up, you can't go down, there's too much smoke and flame below.
84-3=81. Or in this case the 81st floor...
BRIAN CLARK: Drywall had been blown off the wall and was lying on, you know propped up against the railing here and, and we had to move it, shovel it aside. You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall.


How you believe that New York Times article helps you is beyond me. People survived for a time after the crashes and the collapse, of that there is no question. Even on the 84th floor.
Well you stated that those floors were subject to massive heat and fires.
Perhaps you should clarify how massive. Massive, but not massive enough to kill survivors but massive enough to weaken steel? Is that what your suggesting?


I can assure you that all floors above 78 were not instantly and completely engulfed in flame, and no one has ever claimed otherwise, and it is disingenuous to even imply that. But you will anyway.

It wasn't? It sure looked liked it from the visual record. Or are you suggesting it was engulfed in flame for a brief time and then evolved into a typical office fire?

Here is you quote in regards to the areas above 78....

You know he reached only the 78th floor, and was talking about the 78th floor only, yet you claim 1. he was also talking about the fires above which the visual record show were subject to massive heat and fires

Now if you would, post or link to the visual record that refutes the survivors testimony and supports your statement that the visual record shows the floors (you didn't mention what part or all of the floor btw) to be subject to massive heat and fires. Or at least post pictures of the interior of the South Tower that refutes the statements of survivors? Can you?

Oh and learn the quote button function, it will help all of us.

If you want to continue this line or reasoning I will appeal to the Mods to move the comments as an attempt to derail the thread.

[16.5]

"If you want to continue this line or reasoning I will appeal to the Mods to move the comments as an attempt to derail the thread."

Whoops, sorry Swing. From this day forward I promise never again to point out that you are using quotes in a grossly misleading way.

Keep chasing that TRUTH, Swing-y!

Stick to the topic at hand and do not personalize the argument.

[Bell]

Now this is quite comical.

You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires, but accept without question the statements of firefighters about WTC 7 despite the visual record of WTC 7.

There is NOTHING comical about this, Swing. It is the troofers who MISUSE chief Palmer's quote to 'prove' there where no massive fires inside the tower(s). THAT argument is BS, THAT is what I'm fed up with.

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=16.5;3219612]
Sounds a lot like what you do Swing. Remember this quote of yours.
The burden of proof is now upon the debunker's shoulders.
< http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85833&page=2 >
[QUOTE]
Well as soon as the facts came out regarding the original subject you pulled a disappearing act. You didn't even bother to defend the truther side when I statrted the thread bellow.
< http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93401 >

You want me to defend an ongoing analysis of conflicts? Sorry I don't have the information that Pilots have regarding the conflict. Please don't derail the thread.

AMTMAN's -It looks like Rob has finally posted an addmission that there is something out there that contradicts his side of the story.
< http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html >
Here's what he says.
Update 09/18/07: A new document has emerged on the internet through an anonymous source which orders the phones deactivated dated March 2002. This new document is not referenced in the above 757 AMM page as the deactivation order. The document contradicts American Airlines Customer Relations Representative Chad Kinder, American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard who states the deactivation order was issued prior to 9/11/2001 and of course the above 757 AMM page. We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available.

[AMTMAN]

[QUOTE=AMTMAN;3219766][QUOTE=Swing Dangler;3219680]
You want me to defend an ongoing analysis of conflicts? Sorry I don't have the information that Pilots have regarding the conflict. Please don't derail the thread.

Sorry if you don't like it when someone points out your own hypocrisy.

[Drudgewire]

Sorry if you don't like it when someone points out your own hypocrisy.
I think he's a little confused about the definition of hypocrisy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3218986&postcount=17). http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/ssh.gif


e: Oops, wrong twoofer. :o

[FactCheck]

Machinery saved people in WTC

By Dennis Cauchon and Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY

NEW YORK — The 16 people who escaped the burning top floors of the World Trade Center's south tower owe their lives to an unlikely hero: a row of giant elevator machines that shielded one stairway from destruction. About 2,000 people were on or above the floors hit by two hijacked jets Sept. 11. USA TODAY has identified only 16 survivors from those floors. These survivors were all in the south tower. They all used the same stairway. And they all made it out because an enormous elevator machine room happened to be located on the 81st floor, where the nose of the jet hit.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/17/stairway.htm

Why is this always left out of the conspiracy story??? I guess theirs no money to be made putting things in context is there.

Sorry but I get REALLY angry at people who insult my intelligence by lying about what dead people said. Especially the dead firemen of 9/11. They didn't ask to included in the conspiracy story.

[RedIbis]

I must agree with RedIbis. I often allow my frustration to get the best of me, and as satisfying as it is to use condescension, it's not really productive. We should show civility to all those who show civility to us.

But, Red, this only applies to the word "twoofer", which is our own bastardization of "truther". The latter word is accepted by the Truth Movement as a label for who they are. I mean, if you really don't want to be called what the rest of the movement is calling itself, we COULD make a special exception for you, but the point is there should be nothing inherently offensive about "truther".

"Twoofer", on the other hand, is used in a condescending manner. I tend to avoid it myself, though I'm still not as civil as I'd like myself to be.


This is a very honest and encouraging post, exactly the type of dialogue I find most productive here. To the point:

It's just as silly to me if some kid in a black hoodie and a laptop calls himself a truther as someone labeling me a truther. I despise labels, they are an attempt to marginalize and perpetuate the false idea that a member of a group holds the same opinions as all of the other members. See the problem with this?

For example, is Dr. Frank Greening a truther? I would say he's an honest and thorough scientist who has presented some analysis that has supported the official story and other analysis which seriously calls into question the NIST report. So is he a half truther?

I certainly welcome a thread that asks for errors concerning Gravy's research. Gravy himself has already referred, linked and corrected a very serious error on his part that I brought to his attention. In fact, this one error laid to waste his entire premise and thusly the thread itself.

Perhaps, those calling for me to present such errors will take a look at that exchange and be cautious about deferring to a researcher who admittedly makes mistakes, big mistakes.

There can be no argument here that Gravy is given special prominence. Just look at his face on the banner advertising the Florida conference and his stickied threads.

There is a danger in this. He's not superhuman. In fact his research is condescending, often inaccurate, and as SwingDangler has so effectively pointed out, not much more than subjective interpretation for the reader. As soon as he is contested, he will put that poster on ignore.

And until Gravy can source his claim that Rodriguez was a hundred feet from the collapse of the tower, this is an error as well.

It is exactly this type of post and these exchanges which explain my signature.

[jhunter1163]

Gravy himself has already referred, linked and corrected a very serious error on his part that I brought to his attention. In fact, this one error laid to waste his entire premise and thusly the thread itself.

Would that those who question the official story showed such intellectual honesty. Instead, they repeat the same debunked points over and over, completely ignoring the evidence that contradicts them.

Perhaps, those calling for me to present such errors will take a look at that exchange and be cautious about deferring to a researcher who admittedly makes mistakes, big mistakes.

There can be no argument here that Gravy is given special prominence. Just look at his face on the banner advertising the Florida conference and his stickied threads.

There is a danger in this. He's not superhuman. In fact his research is condescending, often inaccurate, and as SwingDangler has so effectively pointed out, not much more than subjective interpretation for the reader. As soon as he is contested, he will put that poster on ignore.

And until Gravy can source his claim that Rodriguez was a hundred feet from the collapse of the tower, this is an error as well.

It is exactly this type of post and these exchanges which explain my signature.

I don't believe that anyone defers to Gravy here. He claimed that Okanogan County was the third largest county in the US in the thread below. This was incorrect, and was almost immediately pointed out to him.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100370

Perhaps a trivial example, but it shows that no one's word is taken here, not even the mighty Gravy.

[Mooseman]

How about a thread with only the better posts of Red, Swing and the other CTer"s?
Tastfully done of course with all due respect given. What will the claims look like?

[RedIbis]

Would that those who question the official story showed such intellectual honesty.

Nicely put with archaic construction. Are you from England or have had a very formal education? Honestly curious, sorry for the quick derail.

[jhunter1163]

From Swing's post #65: Source: The 9/11 Digital Archive

Contributed by: Arturo Griffith
Contributor's location on 9/11: Freight Elevator
Contributor's local union affiliation:
Contributed on: September 17, 2001

Arturo Griffith was in a freight elevator when the building was attacked. The elevator dropped to B1 (the basement level), fell below the landing. He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him.
'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.'

'I couldn't walk. When they were getting' me out, I tried to stand up three times, but I kept fallin'. I didn't realize that my knee was fractured. When I got out of the building, I wanted to go back in to find my wife. But I was on a stretcher. I couldn't move.'

Arturo's wife, Carmen Griffith, was also on an elevator that morning. Having just dropped off 6 people at Cantor Fitzgerald, Carmen's elevator was on the way down with several passengers in tow. Suddenly, the entire elevator shook. The car stopped on the 78th floor. The doors would not open. Carmen and the passengers pried the doors open. When Carmen stepped out to check the floor, a ball of fire rolled through the hallway.

Carmen dropped to the floor and rolled about in an effort to extinguish the flames. Onlookers helped to douse the flames with their jackets. Carmen suffered 2nd degree burns on her face, head, legs and arms. 'Another worker helped Carmen get out,' Arturo said.

'Arlene Charles helped my wife walk down the stairs. Carmen has asthma, so it wasn't just the burns. With all the smoke, she couldn't hardly breathe. Arlene got her to the 40th floor. But Carmen couldn't walk any more. So, firemen took her the rest of the way down. When she got outside, she wanted to go back in to look for me. Thank God the firemen wouldn't let her back in the building. They took my wife to Long Island College Hospital. It was a while before we knew we were okay.'

Speaking from his bed at St. Vincent's Hospital, Arturo talked about his thoughts during the disaster. 'When I was in the elevator, I saw death in front of me. And I was sure that my wife was gone. I didn't think that I would ever see her again. I thank God for saving me and my wife.'

Cite as: Arturo Griffith , Story #54, The September 11 Digital Archive, 17 September 2001, <http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/54>.
Archival Information: 455 words, 2420 characters

Posted here in its entirety.

It does appear to say what Swing says it does; an explosion occurred some time after the impact, long enough for Griffith to get pulled out and for the rescuers to go back and get the woman out. I could not find the corresponding quote in Gravy's WTC paper.

[beachnut]

Why would I participate in a thread that refers to me as a "twoofer" or "truther"?

If the OP is sincere and wishes to catalog the errors that the preeminent researcher on this site has made, I suggest you begin with a bit of respect and drop the silly labels.

I've heard every possible rationale for why it's ok for the regulars here to use labels and none of them inspire productive debate. Let me know when you wish to treat your opponent in debate with a basic level of respect and I'll participate with civility and accuracy.
The real reason you can not participate in this thread is due to the lack of facts. So stop complaining and start producing.

[jhunter1163]

Red:

I'm from Connecticut and haven't had a classical education. I just like archaic constructions better than modern ones.

[RedIbis]

The real reason you can not participate in this thread is due to the lack of facts. So stop complaining and start producing.

Keep reading.

[Gravy]

This little segment alone displays the apparent possible motivation for his paper..not the revelation of facts and truth mind you, but an attempt to spin and distort one man's account in support of the official story.

False. I link to Griffith's full account at digitalarchive.org, plus two other accounts where he's quoted, as well as to the accounts of others who refer to him.

Your accusation that I did not include Marlene Cruz's account is also false. I quote and link to three of her own accounts, as well as to at least three other accounts that mention her.

Because you continually take these accounts out of context, I have you on ignore, and that's where you'll stay. Your ignorance is deliberate, comprehensive, and compulsively repeated. I feel sorry for you.

[Gravy]

In response to the discussion about whether people were burning inside the tower or not, I was almost going to ask if any of the fallen bodies had been examined, and found to have burned (as well as the obvious damage), but it didn't take me too long to realise why this was a stupid question. And then I got all upset over this again. Why people think that anyone would jump at that distance without damn good reason really escapes me. Stickman - why do you think anyone would jump like that?
There are quite a few accounts of people jumping who appeared to be smoking and/or on fire.

[AMTMAN]

This is a very honest and encouraging post, exactly the type of dialogue I find most productive here. To the point:

It's just as silly to me if some kid in a black hoodie and a laptop calls himself a truther as someone labeling me a truther. I despise labels, they are an attempt to marginalize and perpetuate the false idea that a member of a group holds the same opinions as all of the other members. See the problem with this?

For example, is Dr. Frank Greening a truther? I would say he's an honest and thorough scientist who has presented some analysis that has supported the official story and other analysis which seriously calls into question the NIST report. So is he a half truther?

I certainly welcome a thread that asks for errors concerning Gravy's research. Gravy himself has already referred, linked and corrected a very serious error on his part that I brought to his attention. In fact, this one error laid to waste his entire premise and thusly the thread itself.

Perhaps, those calling for me to present such errors will take a look at that exchange and be cautious about deferring to a researcher who admittedly makes mistakes, big mistakes.

There can be no argument here that Gravy is given special prominence. Just look at his face on the banner advertising the Florida conference and his stickied threads.

There is a danger in this. He's not superhuman. In fact his research is condescending, often inaccurate, and as SwingDangler has so effectively pointed out, not much more than subjective interpretation for the reader. As soon as he is contested, he will put that poster on ignore.

And until Gravy can source his claim that Rodriguez was a hundred feet from the collapse of the tower, this is an error as well.

It is exactly this type of post and these exchanges which explain my signature.

And as I pointed people like Swing Dangler will latch onto whatever conspiracy theroy that comes his way. When the facts are finally pointed out like so many truhers he won't even acknowledge it.

[Gravy]

Since this thread is about my errors, I feel compelled to read it. However, there's little in the three pages here that's directed to errors I've made. I'm not going to keep wading through these derails, especially since some of the people here I have put on ignore, for good reason.

I ask that anyone who has errors to point out in my work notify me by PM or email: nyctours(at)gmail(dot)com

Thank you.

[FactCheck]

Because you continually take these accounts out of context, I have you on ignore, and that's where you'll stay. Your ignorance is deliberate, comprehensive, and compulsively repeated. I feel sorry for you.

I'm going to join you in ignoring him. It's absolultey IMPOSSIBLE that he isn't aware of the staircase protected by elevators which saved lives. If he IS ignorant to that information then he really hasn't searched for the truth. For a long time member of this forum to come to a thread about errors in Gravey's research without knowing the basic information which has been out there for 2 years is impossible in my view. He has proven to me to be a quote miner whos lungs are filled with quote dust provided by Jones and Griffin quote mining industry.

[Hyperviolet]

Gravy says Rush are bad.

False.

[LashL]

[snipped]...be cautious about deferring to a researcher who admittedly makes mistakes...

Deferring? I'm not sure what you mean by that. However, I would suggest that one should be even more cautious about a researcher who does not admit to making mistakes, and who will not correct their mistakes even after such mistakes are pointed out to them. (E.g. just about every self-proclaimed "researcher" in Trutherville.)

Everyone makes mistakes, and admitting them is a good thing, not a bad thing.

There can be no argument here that Gravy is given special prominence. Just look at his face on the banner advertising the Florida conference and his stickied threads.

Gravy is on one (maybe 2?) of the various banners advertising the Florida conference because he is a presenter at that conference as a result of his extensive personal knowledge and research on the events of 9/11 and his proven abilities in debunking the claims of conspiracy fantasists. I am sure that with your mad research skills, you have noted that there are several different banners relating to that conference, featuring the other presenters on other topics. As for the stickied threads, Gravy is the author of just one of the five stickied threads, and it is a stickied thread because the resource that he posted therein is a valuable one.

If that's what you call "special prominence", well, knock yourself out.


There is a danger in this.

Do tell, please, what this "danger" is, in your view?

He's not superhuman.

Thank you for stating the obvious. In case you hadn't noticed, none of the skeptics here think that Gravy is superhuman. Some truthers seem to think he is, judging by their fear of him, their incessant juvenile attacks on him, their death threats against him, and their constant ad hominem attacks on him, but skeptics harbour no such illusions about Gravy's mortality.


In fact his research is condescending,

All of it? Always? Or are you, perhaps, exaggerating?

Condescension is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. What one person may view as condescending, another may view as factual but sarcastic, another may view as factual but written by someone who is (justifiably) pissed off, another may view as factual and not at all condescending. Also, sometimes condescension is entirely understandable and justified. For instance, while explaining something for the thousandth time to a truther who refuses to take in what has been explained 999 times before, and who keeps recycling the same, old, tired, long-debunked nonsense. Even if you, personally, feel that it is occasionally condescending, do you think that invalidates the vast majority of his research that is not condescending?

Gravy does not deny that he has written some of his material in anger (justified anger, in my view). He does not claim to be a dispassionate and disinterested observer reporting dryly upon events that have no impact on him personally. He does not claim to be above reacting, sometimes strongly, to what he perceives as idiotic, unjustified (and unjustifiable) deliberate stupidity.

So, sue him.

often inaccurate,

Often? How often? This very thread is precisely on the topic of errors he has made. Have at it. Bring evidence.

[jhunter1163]

I fear that this thread is degenerating into ad-hom attacks on Mark, which was certainly not my intention. I haven't seen anything really compelling as far as allegations of errors.

Mods, please close the thread.

[Totovader]

You must have missed the first sentence and title of the OP. I was being directly addressed.

If you're going to refer to logical fallacies than you should recognize the use of labels as base ad hominem.

I'm not sure what would make you think I am not capable of reading the OP since I am the one who keeps referring to it, and you are the one that keeps avoiding it.

I recognize ad hominem- it's not that difficult to spot. The OP does not contain an ad hominem argument.

[Totovader]

Well I think the title of one article says it all

9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis
How Ideologues on the Left and Right Theorize Vacuously to Support Baseless Supposition

That didn't even come close to answering my question...

IOW, people are so caught up in their belief system when it comes to 9/11 whether if it's pro-OS or against-OS that they refuse to objectively look at anything that could qualify as evidence for the opposing side.

Yet, here in a thread demanding evidence, you are claiming that logic is unnecessary.

Instead of addressing it, they meet it with informal logic to avoid discussing it.

That statement is self-defeating. Do you know what informal logic is?

Personally, I do not find myself doing this. Because if someone really wants to find the truth, they will objectively look at something that could prove one of their previous beliefs wrong.

One only need to look at your post history to see that you consistently and routinely avoid the facts and are entirely incapable of admitting you're wrong. When you claim that you look for objective evidence, it's nothing but an empty claim without any substance whatsoever. We can test your assertion, and it's extremely easy to see that you're lying.

For instance, I used to hear how no Muslim names were on the passenger manifests. But I go back and look and I find that's not true.

Of course- had you done any research on the topic, you would find that you are wrong. Would you be willing to admit you're wrong on this- and if so, would you be capable of changing your mind- or would you at least be willing to admit that you're a hypocrite?

I used to quote Woodrow Wilson about the Fed Reserve, but since I can't cite that, I no longer use it.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, or why it's relevant.

I like this site because it forces you to use cited proof which helps you present more factual information.

Then I challenge you to cite the proof for your above statement.

All Im saying is mathematically there is a chance that either side is true

Nothing about this statement is true.

It's mathematically possible that

A)Government displayed competence/immorality to pull off 9/11 and used their PR Machine as the media to cover it up

B)It's possible government was that incompetent and all the anomalies surrounding the event are just coincidences

And of course, there's the planet x option...

It's just IMO that A a bigger possibility than B. But Im not going to go as far as to say there is no mathematical possibility the other side could be true because Im still disseminating fact from fiction.

That logic thing you wanted to avoid- look up what a false dilemma fallacy is.

But the other side IMO is so stubborn they won't even admit it as a mathematical possibility and they refuse to objectively look at any information that would go against the competence/morality angle.

Facts. All "this side" requires is facts.

Evidence.

Remember that.


ETA: Misread the claim- double negative tricked me.

[CptColumbo]

All Im saying is mathematically there is a chance that either side is true.

Nothing about this statement is true.
It doesn't matter who the engineer's parents are or who is paying them, one plus one will always equal two. You have to find if there are errors in the calculations are.

[DarkMagician]

God, I hate it when people confuse a fire with one of those destructive laser blasts from anime shows.

Note: A huge fire does NOT instantly vaporize everything. People can manage to survive huge fires if they know where to go and have a little luck. It takes time for a person to go from "HOLY [rule 10] FIRE!" to living impaired.

God, every time I read "There were survivors, therefore, the fire wasn't that bad", I think the writer watched too much anime or sci-fi.

[Sporanox]

God, I hate it when people confuse a fire with one of those destructive laser blasts from anime shows.

Note: A huge fire does NOT instantly vaporize everything. People can manage to survive huge fires if they know where to go and have a little luck. It takes time for a person to go from "HOLY [rule 10] FIRE!" to living impaired.

God, every time I read "There were survivors, therefore, the fire wasn't that bad", I think the writer watched too much anime or sci-fi.

Don't most characters in anime survive gigantic energy explosions anyway? lol...

But yeah, you're right.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That is also not ad hominem. That was simply insult.

If I said you were wrong becauase you're a whiny wanna-be, that would be ad hom. Instead, I said that your continued mis-use of logical terms makes you a whiny wanna-be, which is a personal opinion based upon a review of the available evidence.

ETA: Nice description of ad hominem id available here (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html).
Example from there:
Gee, that sounds familiar...

ETA2: Although, I suppose you could go with the Wiki definition, which includes pretty much any complaint against a person as an ad hominem (I disagree with this, but I do recognize that some people have a different interpretation). However, if we accept that definition, then RedIbis's attacks against posters using labels, instead of addressing the argument, is in itself an Ad Hominem.

Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The problem with the wiki article is that the attempt to summarize at the top results in an overly broad defn. Best clarification of argumentum ad hominem I've come across are here: http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_hominem and here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

[Hellbound]

Excellent links, Arkan, and fit in better with my own understanding (I knew there was a reason not to trust that Wiki link...as if I really needed a reason not to trust Wiki).

It's just one of my pet peeves. I see ad hominem claimed with every insult, and I see appeal to authority claimed when (for example) someone references Einstein's opinion about relativity. It bugs me :D

[Swing Dangler]

False. I link to Griffith's full account at digitalarchive.org, plus two other accounts where he's quoted, as well as to the accounts of others who refer to him.

Your accusation that I did not include Marlene Cruz's account is also false. I quote and link to three of her own accounts, as well as to at least three other accounts that mention her.

Because you continually take these accounts out of context, I have you on ignore, and that's where you'll stay. Your ignorance is deliberate, comprehensive, and compulsively repeated. I feel sorry for you.

Really? Because what I posted is directly what you wrote in the paper as example of the sequence of events in Arturo's elevator.

This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling –>damage from elevator stopping (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>heavy smoke (possibly pushed down by initial blast, possibly drawn down by falling elevator, or both –> fireball coming down shaft.
Those are your words, Mark, from your paper.
I didn't focus on other accounts, I selected this sequence to show your error or deception.

Now, if you would or could, please show how that sequence was taken out of context. Never mind, I will show you that it was not taken out of context.

We begin with this segment of the paper:
Comparison of witness accounts to Rodriguez story: Time between impact, initial jet fuel explosions, and secondary explosions
First, you offer your own interpretation of the sequence of events based upon you piecing numerous accounts together which the reader can check for themselves.

Then you offer this bit of deception after 6 stages of your interpretation...

This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling –>damage from elevator stopping (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>heavy smoke (possibly pushed down by initial blast, possibly drawn down by falling elevator, or both –> fireball coming down shaft.


1. Mark why did you state Arturo's injuries were from the elevator stopping and not from an explosion as Arturo's explains to Larry King via CNN?

2. Mark, why the false dilemma for an excuse for the heavy black smoke?

3. Why did you leave out the color of the smoke in Arturo's account, yet as a point of emphasis in McCabe's account the smoke is white?

4. Hey Mark, why in the above sequence of events did you list Cruz's experience when you said in the comment above that you did?

And now for the proper correction from Swing that Gravy should make regarding Arturo's sequence based upon Artruo's own words to Larry King:

This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling->debris hit top of elevator –>elevator stops->after stopping ,damage from explosion (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>another explosion->panel throws him against the wall->Unconscious or near unconscious->black smoke->sees light-->rescued by someone->tells rescuers of another person in the elevator--> rescuers go after woman and pull her out->seconds later a fireball came down shaft.

Notice any changes?

1. Gravy omitted or ignored 2 additional explosions after the initial plane impact that severed the cables. WHY?
2. Gravy attributes the damage from an explosion to the elevator stopping not to an explosion as Arturo states. WHY?
3. Gravy omits the third explosion in Arturo's account. WHY?
4. Gravy omits the second person. WHY?
5 Gravy omits the time frame between impact and fireball.
4. Gravy inserts his own thoughts on what happened instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, ie. misrepresentation of the events, omission of other possibilities for black smoke presence, omission of additional explosions.
WHY?

Then you list some quotes from people at the impact area but to do what? Show how the conditions were at impact as opposed to the sub-basement? :confused:

Then you at the end with no inkling of where your going you switch to the South Tower. But I'm not going to harp on format as such.

Here is the link to Mark's sequence of events as I listed above: Mark's Paper (http://911stories.googlepages.com/comparisonofwitnessaccountstorodriguezst2)

The reader can decide if I took it out of context. As you can see I didn't.
I did exactly as the thread's title requested.

Gravy-I link to Griffith's full account at digitalarchive.org, plus two other accounts where he's quoted, as well as to the accounts of others who refer to him.
On the page where this sequence of events Gravy lists , there is not a single link to Arturo Griffith's account. The closest you get on this page to the basement area is 4th Sub-basement: blast 30 seconds after impact.
Edward McCabe:and this isn't sourced. Then you proceed to the South Tower.

To be fair, the links you provide to Arturo's account are on the opening page.
They are not the FULL account and that is a false statement.

Your first source you use: here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010918/ai_n14406873), Gravy, this has no direct quote from Arturo and is very vague in his account. As an example:
"Arturo Griffith, a Panamanian, was in a lift at the time of the impact. The whole car shook and juddered as he heard an ominous noise from above.Arturo Griffiths had managed to escape from the tower with a broken kneecap."

Your second source we finally get to a direct quote from Arturo:
"I felt the explosion and the elevator dropped," Arturo said at St. Vincents Hospital in Manhattan, where he's being treated for a broken leg.Source Here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010916/ai_n14537022).

Your third source which is blocked at my NWO Hq states this with a couple of direct quotes:
Arturo Griffith was in a freight elevator when the building was attacked. The elevator dropped to B1 (the basement level), fell below the landing. He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him. 'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.' "

Had you had the full account, you would have included the CNN transcript that I linked to here. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/06/lklw.00.html)and you would have included his full account into the sequence of events you listed above.

Further into your paper you list a partial transcript between Laruen Manning and Larry King. But why not with Larry King and Arturo Griffith?
In fact when you get to your accounts to the Inside the North Tower: Witness Accounts, Plaza Level & Concourse Lobbies, Basements (http://911stories.googlepages.com/insidethenorthtower%3Awitnessaccounts%2Clobb) you use the same 3 sources I examined above but again did not post the Larry King transcript. So in truth, you DID NOT LINK to Arturo's full account. I suspect you purposely did that. Nice deception on your part, I must say and a great information warfare tactic, but then again I expect that from the lead 'debunker.'

So Gravy, stop pandering to unfounded garbage like this...Because you continually take these accounts out of context, I have you on ignore, and that's where you'll stay.
You can plainly see I did no such thing, but you offer that as an excuse to ignore me. Hey Mark, if I were you, I would keep ole' Swing on ignore too after the shredding of just one example in your paper. I would also issue comments Gravy-Your ignorance is deliberate, comprehensive, and compulsively repeated. I feel sorry for you.that support Kevin Ryan's assessment of many JREFers.. Most of their efforts appear to be focused on smearing those questioning the government’s version of 9/11...

So by all means keep me on ignore. I'm going to continue to comment on your paper within this thread and continue to shred your paper.

I also noticed that your little quip to me did not refute a single point I brought up on my original comment. Great job!

Have a great weekend everyone!

[DGM]

This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling->debris hit top of elevator –>elevator stops->after stopping ,damage from explosion (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>another explosion->panel throws him against the wall->Unconscious or near unconscious->black smoke->sees light-->rescued by someone->tells rescuers of another person in the elevator--> rescuers go after woman and pull her out->seconds later a fireball came down shaft.

Swing, Why did you leave out the first explosion?
CNN
A. GRIFFITH: Well, I was on my way from B-2 to 49th floor. And as I took off, it was amount it was a matter of seconds -- five, six, seven seconds, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my said and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening.

Would this be to down play his use of the word "explosion"? Why the deception Swing?

[Swing Dangler]

Yet many people suffered similar burns from fireballs in the towers, and they do not claim that the source of the fireballs was anything but the aviation fuel. I've said this before and I'll keep saying it until Rodriguez understands it: if a person was close enough to a demolition charge or large high explosive to be burned by it, he or she would also be blown apart by it.*-Source-Gravy's Paper (http://911stories.googlepages.com/comparisonofwitnessaccountstorodriguezst).A link to a TNT blast follows.

Lets examine this particular error in light of the facts.

In a blast exposure there are levels of damage that can be experienced but they are dependent upon:
1. They type of explosive: high order or low order. High order includes TNT, which Gravy suggests in his video, C-4, mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. Low-order explosives are designed to burn and gradually release energy at a relatively slow rate.This type of explosive (including pipe bombs, gunpowder, and "Molotov cocktails") are referred to as "propellants" because they propel an object such as a bullet through a barrel. Low-order explosives do not create the shock waves generated by high-order explosives. The "blast wind" of low-order explosives is a "pushing" rather than the "shattering" effect found in the "blast wave" of high-order explosives. Injuries resulting from low-order explosives are typically caused by fragments of the container, blast wind from expanding gases, and thermal injuries associated with the heat of the explosion.
2. Additional factors that affect the nature and severity of blast-related injuries include the container in which the explosive is housed, the barriers between the explosive and the person, the distance from the explosion, and the space around the explosion (whether it occurred in an enclosed or an open space)
3. Now lets examine injuries associated from an explosion:
Primary effects from the blast/pressure wave include: Pulmonary barotraumas, tympanic membrane rupture and middle ear damage, abdominal hemorrhage, perforation of the globe of the eye, and concussion (TBI without physical sign of head injury) are some of the primary effects of blast exposure.http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3222333
JREF Forum - Reply to Topic

Secondary effect:secondary effects of blast injury result from flying debris such as bomb fragments, and can result in eye penetration, open head brain injury, and a variety of other medical problems.

Tertiary effects of blast injury result from the individual being thrown by the blast wind, and can cause fracture, traumatic amputation, closed and open brain injury, and a host of other medical problems.
I highlighted the traumatic amputation due to the account in the eleveator lobby of a person's legs being amputated. The source for the above information is from Blast Injury Basics (http://www.asha.org/about/publications/leader-online/archives/2006/060711/f060711a4.htm).

quaternary (or miscellaneous) effects of blast injury refer to all explosion-related injuries, illnesses, or diseases not due to primary, secondary or tertiary mechanisms. These includes burns, crush injuries, closed and open head brain injury, angina, hyperglycemia, hypertension, and asthma and other breathing problems resulting from the inhalation of dust, smoke, or toxic fumes.

Additional factors that affect the nature and severity of blast-related injuries include the container in which the explosive is housed, the barriers between the explosive and the person, the distance from the explosion, and the space around the explosion (whether it occurred in an enclosed or an open space).

Now in light of the facts, lets re-examine Gravy's original comment:
if a person was close enough to a demolition charge or large high explosive to be burned by it, he or she would also be blown apart by it.

It appears that a person can indeed be burned by a high explosive but not be blown apart.

Gravy's own link proves him wrong...
Miscellaneous Blast Effects (Quaternary Blast
Injuries)
This category of blast trauma includes burns from fire or
radiation, crush injury associated with structural collapse,
poisoning from carbon monoxide or other toxic products
of the explosion, and inhalation of dust or chemicals from
the explosion.Source: http://www.storysmith.net/Articles/Blast%20Injuries%200406.pdf

Not only that, according to Gravy's own source: The unprotected human body can survive a blast with a peak overpressure of 30 psi, but buildings and other
structures collapse with stress of only a few psi. (Table 3 on page 7) This means that people can survive the effects of a blast, only to be injured by collapsing buildings. Most of those killed were believed to be killed by a collapsing wall according to a BBC article on the attack.

So back to Mark's original comment: I've said this before and I'll keep saying it until Rodriguez understands it: [B]if a person was close enough to a demolition charge or large high explosive to be burned by it, he or she would also be blown apart by it.

Yet again another one of Mark Robert's factual errors pointed out by Swing.

Someone may want to point the error out to Mark as he has me on ignore.

[DGM]

Swing:
Why did you not deal with the error in your last post before you moved on? That is very deceptive.

You should not throw stones.

[Swing Dangler]

Swing, Why did you leave out the first explosion?
Would this be to down play his use of the word "explosion"? Why the deception Swing?

Excellent point. Perhaps you should ask Gravy why he left it out. Will you?

Are you suggesting there was an explosion prior to impact?

I shouldn't throw stones?? LOL. I didn't write a hit piece on William Rod, Mark did. Check the title of the thread again.

For your benefit, I will edit the comment but I don't think I can. ;)

Swing:
Why did you not deal with the error in your last post before you moved on? That is very deceptive.

Thanks again for proving Kevin Ryan correct.

[DGM]

Excellent point. Perhaps you should ask Gravy why he left it out. Will you?

Are you suggesting there was an explosion prior to impact?

I shouldn't throw stones?? LOL. I didn't write a hit piece on William Rod, Mark did. Check the title of the thread again.

For your benefit, I will edit the comment but I don't think I can. ;)

Swing:
Why did you not deal with the error in your last post before you moved on? That is very deceptive.

Thanks again for proving Kevin Ryan correct.
An edit or retraction would suffice for your mistake.

Thanks again for proving Kevin Ryan correct.

????????????

As far as the rest of your claims. If I find problems yes I will ask Gravy to explain or correct them. Why wouldn't I? I'm sure he would want to know about errors in his work.

Now I have lots to do this afternoon so I will review the rest of your post later.

[Norseman]

..................
Now in light of the facts, lets re-examine Gravy's original comment:
if a person was close enough to a demolition charge or large high explosive to be burned by it, he or she would also be blown apart by it.

It appears that a person can indeed be burned by a high explosive but not be blown apart.

Yet again another one of Mark Robert's factual errors pointed out by Swing.


No Swing Dangler, Mark Robert's understanding of high explosives is entirely correct. If you read the whole paper (http://www.storysmith.net/Articles/Blast%20Injuries%200406.pdf), as it looks like you did, you will see that it discusses all types of explosions caused by rapid chemical conversions (not nuclear). And it also lists all the types of injuries these explosions can cause on a human body. And if you read it carefully you will see that burn injuries are not something that is associated with high explosives like TNT and RDX.

Burn injuries are associated with low order explosives that deflagrates and does not create a supersonic shock wave like high explosives:
The explosion from low-order devices lacks the overpressure
wave; thus, injuries are due to ballistics (fragmentation),
blast wind from the expansion of the gases, and
thermal injuries from the heat of the explosion.
Page 5 Blast Injuries

And with vapor cloud explosions (thermobaric or fuel air explosives). This part of the report is quiet relevant regarding the jet fuel that went down the elevator shafts, a couple of noteworthy quotes from that part of the report:
The blast effects from vapor cloud explosions are
determined not only by the amount of fuel, but more
importantly by the combustion mode of the cloud. Most
vapor cloud explosions are deflagrations, not detonations. Flame speed of a deflagration is subsonic, with flame speed increasing in restricted areas and decreasing in open areas.
Likewise, since the temperature of the burning fuel is greater than that of conventional explosives, extensive burns can occur in survivors.
Page 5 and 6 Blast Injuries

Extensive burns like what happened to the unfortunate victims that happened to stand close to the elevator shafts inside the WTC towers when fire balls burst out of the shafts.

[Gravy]

This is quite simple to test: stand close enough to a stick of TNT to be burned when it detonates, and see if the burns are the greatest of your worries.

If you were close enough to these blasts to be burned, how else would you be feeling?
-47V69mXsz0(There's a naughty word at the end of this video)

[CptColumbo]

This is quite simple to test: stand close enough to a stick of TNT to be burned when it detonates, and see if the burns are the greatest of your worries.

If you were close enough to these blasts to be burned, how else would you be feeling?
-47V69mXsz0(There's a naughty word at the end of this video)
Remember the first rule of not being seen, not standing up. :)

[Corsair 115]

This is quite simple to test: stand close enough to a stick of TNT to be burned when it detonates, and see if the burns are the greatest of your worries.

If you were close enough to these blasts to be burned, how else would you be feeling?
-47V69mXsz0(There's a naughty word at the end of this video)"They blowed up good. They blowed up real good!"

[jhunter1163]

Remember the first rule of not being seen, not standing up. :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekiZYSVdeQ

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

UvmU2IUH-bk

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

I thought this was going to be called "The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread"?

[Hokulele]

I thought this was going to be called "The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread"?


Why?

[LashL]

Why?

Hazarding a guess here: because the *cough* "princess" is a twoofer guy posing as a chick on teh (damn, that's hard for me to type) interwebs (so is that) for fun and amusement.

Just a guess, though. I could, of course, be wrong.

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

Hazarding a guess here: because the *cough* "princess" is a twoofer guy posing as a chick on teh (damn, that's hard for me to type) interwebs (so is that) for fun and amusement.

Just a guess, though. I could, of course, be wrong.
Dude... this has been dealt with.

Not every person in the "truth" movement is male. And not every female who posts at a forum is a guy claiming to be a girl.

I came to this forum because a very good friend of mine (even though he is a SKEPTIC) posts here. I was also interested in reviewing information as there are days that I have doubts. The members here have been so rude that it has served to reinforce my opinion of skeptics. Rather than being nice and providing information that could have possibly swayed my opinion, instinctually you all attacked.

[Hokulele]

Dude... this has been dealt with.


FYI, LashL isn't a dude. ;)

[Sporanox]

I came to this forum because a very good friend of mine (even though he is a SKEPTIC) posts here. I was also interested in reviewing information as there are days that I have doubts. The members here have been so rude that it has served to reinforce my opinion of skeptics. Rather than being nice and providing information that could have possibly swayed my opinion, instinctually you all attacked.

Can't you see how truthers' dodging and semantic sarcasm wears on everybody's nerves at the end of the day?

The information is all over the place for you. Do a search and you'll find all the debunking you need to prove the conspiracy movement wrong.

Or did you come to this forum just to plead for peace and justice in the "mean skeptic" community? Because you sure don't say anything specific about the evidence...

[uk_dave]

We're all such :crc: bad people.

[Magenta]

I came to this forum because a very good friend of mine (even though he is a SKEPTIC) posts here. I was also interested in reviewing information as there are days that I have doubts. The members here have been so rude that it has served to reinforce my opinion of skeptics. Rather than being nice and providing information that could have possibly swayed my opinion, instinctually you all attacked.


Why rely on other people to sway your opinion? Wouldn't a better option be to assess the evidence yourself and make up your own mind?

[Gravy]

Xena, you have repeatedly posted here to make snide remarks about me.

Is Mark Roberts the Dylan Avery of this forum? I have never seen so many people kiss ass like this before, except at LCF.
It doesn't bother me. However, I do find it quite curious. Mark Roberts is infamous among my circles, so to see the adoration here surprises me. Some of the comments were funny, but all of it reminded me of the way the Loose Change fan club idolizes boy wonder. It may be different, but it is certainly similar.

As I said no offense intended. I really thought it was a joke...

I was curious if Roberts ran this forum, I guess that he is just the David Koresh or Ron Hubbard around here. He certainly sounds like "an all around good guy."
Thank you Mark.

I do have many, many questions for you. The most important one involves your signature:
Phil Jayhan is the champion of the pod theory... what else could you expect? :)

You didn't like the cult leader status comparison? I thought it was funny. At least I didn't compare you to Phil Jayhan.

I compared Mark Roberts to a "cult leader" not the great James Randi and I was kidding. Relax.

I whole heartely agree with your interpretation of boy wonder. Try and be objective though, the comparison is absolutely similar. You guys worship "Gravy" like LCF worships Golden Boy, PERIOD. No offense directed at Roberts. I have actually begun going through his work and some of it appears to be good. It has even made me question some of my beliefs, however some of it is driven by emotion and lacks evidence plain and simple. I am not here to argue, I am here to possibly learn something and to mock Dylan Avery.
You know I love your videos... I think they are hilarious. Especially that part where you say Mark Roberts is all around good guy.
Stop whining? I am merely responding to a thread on a forum. Am I not free to do so? Is this a skeptics only forum?

Speaking of whining Mark, you seem to be doing a very good job of that yourself. I have said that your research is driven by emotion. You want it to be true, so in your eyes it is. That is not evidence based.

But hey, you are an "all around good guy" so what do I know...
I find you rather rude and disrespectful Mark Roberts. What happened to being "an all around good guy"? If I offended you by asking if the "Mark Roberts Appreciation Thread" was a joke, then I apologize.

As far as starting a new thread, go for it Mark. I have no intention of wasting my time debunking your debunking though. I am an activist, not a researcher. What is important is that you enjoy your efforts and feel that you are making a positive contribution to society. What difference does it make if I like your work or think that it is driven by emotion? If you insist, however, I would be happy to review any research you send me and provide a thoughtful and objective critique. Do keep in my that I work full time and have a life.

If you are going to start the thread though, how about you title it " The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread?"
I'm on the edge of my seat Mark... how is it that you have so much inside information to members of the truth movement?
I thought this was going to be called "The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread"?

Why you have chosen to behave this way, only you can say. Whining will not advance any argument you have to make about 9/11. I don't care what you think about me. I do care about the events of 9/11. Do you? You don't show it, and you haven't once attempted to discuss those events on this discussion forum.

Please be aware that you have a choice. No one is forcing you to behave this way. You can continue feebly whining about how much you dislike me and others, or you can behave like a rational adult and discuss and learn. Good luck with your decision. :)

[RedIbis]

Has Gravy ever provided a source for the claim that Rodriguez was 100 ft from the tower when it collapsed? The claim is made on the first page of his Escape Artist paper.

That's a big claim and without a source it's a big error.

[DGM]

Has Gravy ever provided a source for the claim that Rodriguez was 100 ft from the tower when it collapsed? The claim is made on the first page of his Escape Artist paper.

That's a big claim and without a source it's a big error.
Isn't that from an interview he did with Rodriguez himself?

[pomeroo]

Dude... this has been dealt with.

Not every person in the "truth" movement is male. And not every female who posts at a forum is a guy claiming to be a girl.

I came to this forum because a very good friend of mine (even though he is a SKEPTIC) posts here. I was also interested in reviewing information as there are days that I have doubts. The members here have been so rude that it has served to reinforce my opinion of skeptics. Rather than being nice and providing information that could have possibly swayed my opinion, instinctually you all attacked.


The information that could--no, would--change the opinion of anyone sincerely seeking answers is abundant and is available in profusion here and on other sites, such as the invaluable 911myths.com and debunking911.com. If our impatience with obtuseness causes you to want to remain in error, well, several obvious conclusions spring to mind, but you already know what they are.

[RedIbis]

Isn't that from an interview he did with Rodriguez himself?

I asked for the source and was told that Rodriguez said it many times on cable access and other shows. I said, ok, what's the source. Any cable show can be sourced, simply provide the date, time, channel, and preferably the time stamp that the quote is made.

I think I was then called a denialist and a liar and Gravy put me on ignore.

[Gravy]

Isn't that from an interview he did with Rodriguez himself?Please don't indulge his deliberate ignorance. He has repeatedly been told that the information came from Rodriguez. He has also repeatedly been told that if Rodriguez wants to say he was 29 feet, 75 feet, 284 feet, or 61.19 feet from the building, I'll gladly put that in my paper. He has also repeatedly been told that this information is relevant to absolutely zero of the claims I examine in that paper.

Again: he has repeatedly been told these things, and chooses to ignore them. That's why I have him on ignore: he's one of the top denialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism) around. How sad.

[RedIbis]

Please don't indulge his deliberate ignorance. He has repeatedly been told that the information came from Rodriguez. He has also repeatedly been told that if Rodriguez wants to say he was 29 feet, 75 feet, 284 feet, or 61.19 feet from the building, I'll gladly put that in my paper. He has also repeatedly been told that this information is relevant to absolutely zero of the claims I examine in that paper.

Again: he has repeatedly been told these things, and chooses to ignore them. That's why I have him on ignore: he's one of the top denialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism) around. How sad.

What the rule 8 kind of academic inquiry is this? You get to make a claim, when I asked for the source you told me "that the information came from Rodriguez"? How about a source?

Either source it or take it out of your paper.

[Totovader]

What the rule 8 kind of academic inquiry is this? You get to make a claim, when I asked for the source you told me "that the information came from Rodriguez"? How about a source?

Either source it or take it out of your paper.

:wow2: Rodriguez isn't a source?

[DGM]

What the rule 8 kind of academic inquiry is this? You get to make a claim, when I asked for the source you told me "that the information came from Rodriguez"? How about a source?

Either source it or take it out of your paper.
Does this claim have any bearing on the paper?

Why has Rodriguez not refuted it himself?

RedIbis, are you just trying to make a trivial point?

[Gravy]

:wow2: Rodriguez isn't a source?Please ignore him. He pulled the exact same crap in other threads, where I told him I got this information directly from Rodriguez.

William Rodriguez has a standing invitation to reply to my paper. It says so right at the top of the paper. Rodriguez has stated that he will not be doing so, but instead will argue his case in the "national media." So be it.

[RedIbis]

Does this claim have any bearing on the paper?

Why has Rodriguez not refuted it himself?

RedIbis, are you just trying to make a trivial point?

You guys have some very low standards for research. If in the first page of a paper the author cannot back up a claim, no matter how inconsequential it may seem to you, it puts into doubt the accuracy of his analysis.

The protagonist's location at the time of the collapse is hardly insignificant. The author cannot just make up any number that he wants so that he can proceed with his specious explanation. If it's so irrelevent why doesn't Gravy just remove it?

This is especially troublesome when we see that the Arturo Griffith analysis is a shambles of implausibility.

[RedIbis]

Please ignore him. He pulled the exact same crap in other threads.

William Rodriguez has a standing invitation to reply to my paper. It says so right at the top of the paper. Rodriguez has stated that he will not be doing so, but instead will argue his case in the "national media." So be it.

Who are you the Field Marshall, who can just order people around? Hopefully, most of the posters here have the independence of mind not to be treated like subordinates.

Nothing personal Mark, but you have to step up to the plate when your "research" is questioned. The root of ignorance is to ignore and you do an awful lot of it.

[DGM]

You guys have some very low standards for research. If in the first page of a paper the author cannot back up a claim, no matter how inconsequential it may seem to you, it puts into doubt the accuracy of his analysis.

The protagonist's location at the time of the collapse is hardly insignificant. The author cannot just make up any number that he wants so that he can proceed with his specious explanation. If it's so irrelevent why doesn't Gravy just remove it?

This is especially troublesome when we see that the Arturo Griffith analysis is a shambles of implausibility.
Gravy has spoken to Rodriguez.

Abby Scott was there I believe (Proof he spoke to him).

Rodriguez does not refute the claim that he is the source.

Your wrong.

[RedIbis]

Gravy has spoken to Rodriguez.

Abby Scott was there I believe (Proof he spoke to him).

Rodriguez does not refute the claim that he is the source.

Your wrong.

I know Gravy and Rodriguez spoke, there's a pic on the paper. That doesn't mean Rodriguez told him he was 100ft away from the building.

The claim is that Rodriguez said it on TV. Ok, where?

[Totovader]

I know Gravy and Rodriguez spoke, there's a pic on the paper. That doesn't mean Rodriguez told him he was 100ft away from the building.

The claim is that Rodriguez said it on TV. Ok, where?

As has been pointed out to you already in this thread- and several times previous to that- whether you personally believe the number or not only means that you need to find evidence contradicting it. Gravy has provided the information and the source. If you personally do not believe it (for whatever reason) then you need to counter it. Simply claiming you do not believe it is insufficient- and irrational.

Furthermore- it has also been pointed out to you that this figure is moot- irrelevant to the account.

Why you continue to ignore this is a mystery. And by mystery I mean it's not.

[DGM]

As has been pointed out to you already in this thread- and several times previous to that- whether you personally believe the number or not only means that you need to find evidence contradicting it. Gravy has provided the information and the source. If you personally do not believe it (for whatever reason) then you need to counter it. Simply claiming you do not believe it is insufficient- and irrational.

Furthermore- it has also been pointed out to you that this figure is moot- irrelevant to the account.

Why you continue to ignore this is a mystery. And by mystery I mean it's not.
For the lurkers this is the paragraph he's disputing.

By Gravy
William Rodriguez was a janitor in the World Trade Center’s north tower. He risked his life on 9/11 to help people who could not help themselves. He nearly became one of the many 9/11 victims whose last moments we know little of. At 10:28 that morning, Rodriguez had just left the building to secure an ambulance for Ed Beyea, a quadriplegic whom he had helped carry from the 27th floor to the lobby. He was only about 100 feet from the north tower when it collapsed. He dove for cover beneath a fire truck as thousands of tons of steel and concrete rained down around him. He credits his training as a stage magician and escape artist with helping him endure the choking dust and confinement that followed. He was pulled from the rubble about two hours later, with only minor injuries. He stayed at the scene to search for survivors. Rodriguez had worked at the Trade Center for over 19 years. Dozens of his friends were murdered on that hellish day.
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Obviously the fire truck was outside the building. So what difference does it make how far? He was still too close for comfort and does not discredit him in any way.

So RedIbis;
This is all just sour grapes isn't it?

[Gravy]

People, RedIbis is now bizarrely inventing the claim that Rodriguez said this on TV, although in several threads, including this one, he's been told how I got this information.

I appreciate the attempts at correction, but will you PLEASE stop engaging with this very troubled person over this nonsense?

Thank you,
Mark

[RedIbis]

People, RedIbis is now bizarrely inventing the claim that Rodriguez said this on TV, although in several threads, including this one, he's been told how I got this information.

I appreciate the attempts at correction, but will you PLEASE stop engaging with this very troubled person over this nonsense?

Thank you,
Mark

This is just pathetic, whining for people to cease having a productive discussion. What's the matter, Mark, does it frustrate you that I've pointed out numerous examples of your shoddy research? Again, produce the source for Rodriguez's claim that he was 100ft from the collapse of the bldg or change your essay.

In this thread (http://http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82688&highlight=Rodriguez&page=8), you vaguely suggest that by watching Rodriguez's cable appearances your quotes would be substantiated. I suggest you be a lot more specific when attributing quotes to Rodriguez.

And keeping with the OP, please take a look at post #313, a perfect example of subjective and misleading interpretation of testimony.

[Par]

In this thread (http://http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82688&highlight=Rodriguez&page=8), you vaguely suggest that by watching Rodriguez's cable appearances your quotes would be substantiated. I suggest you be a lot more specific when attributing quotes to Rodriguez.


He clearly wasn’t referring to the “100 feet” claim.

Just as Rodriguez publicly said it was a jet fuel fireball, on television in 2001 and 2002, and to NIST in 2004.

[Totovader]

This is just pathetic, whining for people to cease having a productive discussion. What's the matter, Mark, does it frustrate you that I've pointed out numerous examples of your shoddy research? Again, produce the source for Rodriguez's claim that he was 100ft from the collapse of the bldg or change your essay.

In this thread (http://http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82688&highlight=Rodriguez&page=8), you vaguely suggest that by watching Rodriguez's cable appearances your quotes would be substantiated. I suggest you be a lot more specific when attributing quotes to Rodriguez.

And keeping with the OP, please take a look at post #313, a perfect example of subjective and misleading interpretation of testimony.

You haven't pointed out a single example of shoddy research- that's the problem. You ignore that which you do not like and offer no evidence for your claims. Gravy has every right to ignore you- and his suggestion that others do the same is based on an understanding of your tactics, not a fear of your incompetence.

[Mooseman]

Red is just being Red.

[16.5]

"Again, produce the source for Rodriguez's claim that he was 100ft from the collapse of the bldg or change your essay."

He has said three or four times that it was a prsonal conversation with Willy. Personal consultations and discussions with participants are a well established and well regarded method of historical scholarship. That you appear to be unaware of this highlights the fact that your obsession with this minor point is bizarre.

[LashL]

Dude... this has been dealt with.

I'm not a "dude".

Not every person in the "truth" movement is male. And not every female who posts at a forum is a guy claiming to be a girl.

Of course not, but "truthers" who come here and quickly demonstrate an obsession with Mark Roberts tend to be male, and have been known to resort to the use of fictitious female characters for their user names.

In any event, I said that it was a guess and that it could be wrong.

I came to this forum because a very good friend of mine (even though he is a SKEPTIC) posts here. I was also interested in reviewing information as there are days that I have doubts.

And yet, you have not contributed anything of substance or even sought to have your questions answered. All you have done is snipe at and about people. You will find that if really wish to obtain information and if you really wish to learn, it is easy to do here. But it helps if you check the attitude at the door.

The members here have been so rude that it has served to reinforce my opinion of skeptics. Rather than being nice and providing information that could have possibly swayed my opinion, instinctually you all attacked.

You reap what you sow. If you are rude, you will get rudeness in return. If you are polite, you will get politeness in return. And nobody "attacked" you, despite your repeated swipes at Mark.

If you drop the snideness and actually seek out the information that you claim to be looking for, you will find that it will be provided to you in abundance by a great number of people with considerable knowledge, experience and expertise in a vast array of areas.

[A W Smith]

I know Gravy and Rodriguez spoke, there's a pic on the paper. That doesn't mean Rodriguez told him he was 100ft away from the building.

The claim is that Rodriguez said it on TV. Ok, where?


Source the claim that it was said on tv. Better yet. Ask Rodriquez if he ever said this to Mark Roberts. He is a member here. Why not private message him? You wont. You know why? Because You are a troll.

[Gravy]

Again: William Rodriguez is welcome to contact me to discuss any and all issues he may have with my paper. This has always been the case.

I respectfully ask once again that people not rise to the bait of the obsessively obtuse RedIbis. His questions were answered three months ago, and he was then encouraged to contact William Rodriguez if he required more information. End of story.

[RedIbis]

Again: William Rodriguez is welcome to contact me to discuss any and all issues he may have with my paper. This has always been the case.

I respectfully ask once again that people not rise to the bait of the obsessively obtuse RedIbis. His questions were answered three months ago, and he was then encouraged to contact William Rodriguez if he required more information. End of story.

I did. He said you're lying.

[Totovader]

I did. He said you're lying.

I just got off the phone with him, he says you're lying.


...

[RedIbis]

I just got off the phone with him, he says you're lying.


...

I'm a betting man. I'll wager that I can back up my claim. Can you back up yours?

[Gravy]

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

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

[Totovader]

I'm a betting man. I'll wager that I can back up my claim. Can you back up yours?

Sure, I'll back up my earlier statement: it doesn't make a difference whether it was 100 feet or not because it's insignificant to the claim. Say $100 for you to even explain why it would need to be necessary to nitpick on this? Especially since it's been clarified for you at least a dozen times?

Does Willie disagree? Has he tried to contact Mark to correct this supposed error?

I will bet an additional $100 that Willie had never "corrected" Mark on this issue- because I fully believe that if Willie had, Mark would have no problem "fixing" it since:

1) Mark is an honest person.
2) Even if Mark were a dishonest person, it doesn't affect the claim at all.
3) You are a fraud, and your claims do not hold up.

[RedIbis]

Sure, I'll back up my earlier statement: it doesn't make a difference whether it was 100 feet or not because it's insignificant to the claim. Say $100 for you to even explain why it would need to be necessary to nitpick on this? Especially since it's been clarified for you at least a dozen times?

Does Willie disagree? Has he tried to contact Mark to correct this supposed error?

I will bet an additional $100 that Willie had never "corrected" Mark on this issue- because I fully believe that if Willie had, Mark would have no problem "fixing" it since:

1) Mark is an honest person.
2) Even if Mark were a dishonest person, it doesn't affect the claim at all.
3) You are a fraud, and your claims do not hold up.

You're backpedaling on your claim that you talked to Rodriguez, I'm not.

Besides, I can't imagine betting money is permitted. I was thinking along the lines of 100 Stundiebucks, make it a thousand. I'm feeling lucky.

[Totovader]

You're backpedaling on your claim that you talked to Rodriguez, I'm not.

Besides, I can't imagine betting money is permitted. I was thinking along the lines of 100 Stundiebucks, make it a thousand. I'm feeling lucky.

I have no intention of supporting the "claim" that I talked to Rodriguez, because I was being facetious in showing that you had no intention of providing proof of that conversation. Obviously, that's still true.

On the other stuff- I'm serious, though. I see no reason to assume that betting money would be forbidden- I'm not even sure where you're pulling that crap from.

Either put up or shut up- that's all I really care about. It shouldn't even need to be a discussion or a chest-beating exercise. Had you actually talked to Rodriguez, you would have already provided proof of the conversation.

From that point we could see if Rodriguez was just feeding into you or not- but like I said before (and again, as many others have pointed out) it's moot.

More to the point of your accusation, however: I stick by my bet. If Rodriguez was so concerned about this figure, he surely would have contacted Mark to correct it. If Rodriguez had done that, then I will pay you $100. If not, I do expect that money.

This wager would go a long way to your credibility- especially since it was your idea.

Agreed?

[Good Lt]

100 StundiebucksHow about Troofer bucks? It's closer to monopoly money. That way, nobody gets hurt.

[RedIbis]

I have no intention of supporting the "claim" that I talked to Rodriguez, because I was being facetious in showing that you had no intention of providing proof of that conversation. Obviously, that's still true.

On the other stuff- I'm serious, though. I see no reason to assume that betting money would be forbidden- I'm not even sure where you're pulling that crap from.

Either put up or shut up- that's all I really care about. It shouldn't even need to be a discussion or a chest-beating exercise. Had you actually talked to Rodriguez, you would have already provided proof of the conversation.

From that point we could see if Rodriguez was just feeding into you or not- but like I said before (and again, as many others have pointed out) it's moot.

More to the point of your accusation, however: I stick by my bet. If Rodriguez was so concerned about this figure, he surely would have contacted Mark to correct it. If Rodriguez had done that, then I will pay you $100. If not, I do expect that money.

This wager would go a long way to your credibility- especially since it was your idea.

Agreed?

One thing you should know about Willie Rodriguez, he's very generous with his time. I explained in the thread I linked to earlier, that I was put in contact with Rodriguez by a mutual friend

Ask Gravy if he thinks this is authentic:

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

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

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

[Totovader]

One thing you should know about Willie Rodriguez, he's very generous with his time. I explained in the thread I linked to earlier, that I was put in contact with Rodriguez by a mutual friend

Ask Gravy if he thinks this is authentic:

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

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

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

I'm not going to bug Gravy on your behalf. He's ignored you for a very good reason- and I will likely be doing the same very soon.

You have provided no proof for your claims- and in fact have backed off from your idea of a wager.

You're quite a few steps from having any substantial position:

1) You would need to prove that this email actually happened (the ENTIRE email, without your likely comments at the end).
2) Then prove that Willie isn't lying (or changing his story- something he's famous for)
3) Then you would need to prove that this 100 feet business is even relevant.
4) Then you would need to provide us with what the CORRECTED figure should be... something the supposed email seems to have left out.

I will give you 18 more hours to either accept or decline my offer. In that time I will also await proof of a conversation. If you are unable to provide proof I will ignore you indefinitely.

[RedIbis]

I'm not going to bug Gravy on your behalf. He's ignored you for a very good reason- and I will likely be doing the same very soon.

You have provided no proof for your claims- and in fact have backed off from your idea of a wager.

You're quite a few steps from having any substantial position:

1) You would need to prove that this email actually happened (the ENTIRE email, without your likely comments at the end).
2) Then prove that Willie isn't lying (or changing his story- something he's famous for)
3) Then you would need to prove that this 100 feet business is even relevant.
4) Then you would need to provide us with what the CORRECTED figure should be... something the supposed email seems to have left out.

I will give you 18 more hours to either accept or decline my offer. In that time I will also await proof of a conversation. If you are unable to provide proof I will ignore you indefinitely.


Silliness. How many times are you going to shift the goal posts?

And don't bother waiting, please put me on ignore immediately, then perhaps I'll stop wasting my time with your nonsense. But seriously, run the email by Gravy. Only he and Rodriguez will know if these details are accurate.

[Totovader]

One thing you should know about Willie Rodriguez, he's very generous with his time. I explained in the thread I linked to earlier, that I was put in contact with Rodriguez by a mutual friend

Ask Gravy if he thinks this is authentic:

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

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

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

Interesting, you've already posted this nonsense before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3005704#post3005704) (albeit a bit modified) and it was responded to.

It seems as though you're wasting my time Red.

Here's your options at this point:

1) Accept or decline the wager.
2) Provide proof of the email (a starting point, I guess)
3) Explain how it makes a difference.

[RedIbis]

1) You would need to prove that this email actually happened (the ENTIRE email, without your likely comments at the end).



For the record. I know Rodriguez has posted here and checks the forum. Unlike some people here I don't put words into people's mouths and I don't appreciate your suggesting that I would do that to Mr. Rodriguez.

And you owe me 100 Stundiebucks.

[Good Lt]

Mark Roberts is a liar.

There he goes again. Unfortunately for Mr. Rodriguez, the evidence available (http://911stories.googlepages.com/home) seems to contradict this assertion. And unlike Mr. Rodriguez, the story outlined by the evidence doesn't change every year.

[RedIbis]

Interesting, you've already posted this nonsense before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3005704#post3005704) (albeit a bit modified) and it was responded to.

It seems as though you're wasting my time Red.

Here's your options at this point:

1) Accept or decline the wager.
2) Provide proof of the email (a starting point, I guess)
3) Explain how it makes a difference.

The "Dear Mr. Red Ibis..." wasn't early enough for you? Or do you want my real name and email address as well as Rodriguez's?

Is that what you're saying? You might want to go back to NWO agent training.

[Totovader]

Silliness. How many times are you going to shift the goal posts?

And don't bother waiting, please put me on ignore immediately, then perhaps I'll stop wasting my time with your nonsense. But seriously, run the email by Gravy. Only he and Rodriguez will know if these details are accurate.

No goalposts are being moved- you're the one sending people on fools errands.

I read this reply as a refusal to accept the wager. Considering the wager addresses your dishonesty, lack of credibility, inconsistency within your claims, and failure to even make a relevant argument- it's understandable.

It's no surprise that when individuals ask you to support your claims, you clam up- and when you're asked to put your money where your mouth is (or rather do as you asked) you come up with excuses.

Now everyone should feel confident knowing you're full of crap. I just had to see it for myself, I guess.

Kudos on that.

[RedIbis]

No goalposts are being moved- you're the one sending people on fools errands.

I read this reply as a refusal to accept the wager. Considering the wager addresses your dishonesty, lack of credibility, inconsistency within your claims, and failure to even make a relevant argument- it's understandable.

It's no surprise that when individuals ask you to support your claims, you clam up- and when you're asked to put your money where your mouth is (or rather do as you asked) you come up with excuses.

Now everyone should feel confident knowing you're full of crap. I just had to see it for myself, I guess.

Kudos on that.

You're getting desperate kid. You lied when you said you had talked to Rodriguez. I didn't and produced the email that proves it. You could just admit this time you were wrong or you can keep on whining. Your choice.

[Totovader]

For the record. I know Rodriguez has posted here and checks the forum. Unlike some people here I don't put words into people's mouths and I don't appreciate your suggesting that I would do that to Mr. Rodriguez.

And you owe me 100 Stundiebucks.

This claim only hurts you and Willie.

If Willie really cared this much, he would have just gone straight to Mark instead of going through you.

So- I don't buy it. And I really don't give a crap as to what you appreciate and what you do not. You have wasted my time.

And "Dear" is not proof of an email- it's proof of the word "Dear" being typed- that is all.

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

No goalposts are being moved- you're the one sending people on fools errands.

I read this reply as a refusal to accept the wager. Considering the wager addresses your dishonesty, lack of credibility, inconsistency within your claims, and failure to even make a relevant argument- it's understandable.

It's no surprise that when individuals ask you to support your claims, you clam up- and when you're asked to put your money where your mouth is (or rather do as you asked) you come up with excuses.

Now everyone should feel confident knowing you're full of crap. I just had to see it for myself, I guess.

Kudos on that.
Totovader, can you please tell me about the concrete shaft?

[Totovader]

You're getting desperate kid. You lied when you said you had talked to Rodriguez. I didn't and produced the email that proves it. You could just admit this time you were wrong or you can keep on whining. Your choice.

You attempted to make a wager you then backed out of. I'm not sure why you think that's desperation on my part.

I never lied- I told you I was being facetious when I said I talked to Willie.

You produced no evidence, you posted comments which have not been verified, and have already been posted and addressed before.

You also failed to address the key issues here- ie my post.

I have no reason to admit I'm wrong- see my previous post on this, including me putting forth my own money to prove you're a fraud.

[Totovader]

Totovader, can you please tell me about the concrete shaft?

Not until you buy me dinner.

*kick drum snare*

Xena- posting off-topic is a violation of the Membership Agreement. You need to read that before you post again.

[Arus808]

well, guess REd wont be providing evidence or explain why the 100 foot claim is even pertinent to the entire day. Whether Willie was 20 feet or 300 feet, it doesn't have any effect on the events that he experienced.

Red has ignored several times that

1) Gravy interviewed Willie personally and got that 100 foot claim straight from him
2) seeing that Willie has embelished his story every time he's repeated it, with more detial and of course, different description, its safe to assume that his "100 foot" claim to gravy could have been a different distance on that day . it could have been 400 feet and of course, since Willie likes to sensationlize his stories, he reduced it to 100 feet. Still has no effect to any relevance of what happened that day.


Since Red Ibis has nothing to offer but the same boring tactics that he's been using since his first appearance on this board, I suggest that those of us here, should just stop responding to those, like Red, who simply repeat things they;'ve been pointed out to be wrong in the past. Just link to the previous reply and dont spend any more time in engaging.

Red Ibis will be going on ignore, as he deserves to be there. anyone who carries on like him, and other truthers, should be very ashamed and their dispicable attitudes.


We all need to stop falling to these truther tactics. Every times a truther comes here and posts inane things, repeated debunked in the past, the thread explodes to 10 pages of nonsense. They are not here to learn; they are here to "stir the ^&*".

We should be better than them, and we are falling for their tricks like Pavlov's dogs.

[RedIbis]

You attempted to make a wager you then backed out of. I'm not sure why you think that's desperation on my part.

I never lied- I told you I was being facetious when I said I talked to Willie.

You produced no evidence, you posted comments which have not been verified, and have already been posted and addressed before.

You also failed to address the key issues here- ie my post.

I have no reason to admit I'm wrong- see my previous post on this, including me putting forth my own money to prove you're a fraud.


I proposed the wager and it was simply that I could back up my claim that I talked to Rodriguez. I challenged you to back up your claim, then you admitted you were being facetious. I wasn't.

Is this what you call, ummm, the "Bruce Lee effect"?

[RedIbis]

I suggest that those of us here, should just stop responding to those, like Red, who simply repeat things they;'ve been pointed out to be wrong in the past. Just link to the previous reply and dont spend any more time in engaging.

Red Ibis will be going on ignore, as he deserves to be there. anyone who carries on like him, and other truthers, should be very ashamed and their dispicable attitudes.
.


Unless it was in response to some personal abuse, I always feel like the "ignore" move is the white flag of internet debates. It's truly a cowardly way to carry on.

[Good Lt]

I proposed the wager and it was simply that I could back up my claim that I talked to Rodriguez. I challenged you to back up your claim, then you admitted you were being facetious. I wasn't.

See, what this proves is that 9-11 was an inside job.

Duh.

[Totovader]

Interesting to note the differences between the two versions of this email you have posted... showing that it's not a cut and paste job:


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



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


Let me guess, you're just retyping it from memory, right?

[RedIbis]

Interesting to note the differences between the two versions of this email you have posted... showing that it's not a cut and paste job:





Let me guess, you're just retyping it from memory, right?

Yeah, I retyped the whole email in a few minutes from memory. Is that your big evidence of a cover up? More like the spacing out of my email was such that I eliminated spaces and probably added the capital letter. Scandalous.

[Totovader]

I proposed the wager and it was simply that I could back up my claim that I talked to Rodriguez. I challenged you to back up your claim, then you admitted you were being facetious. I wasn't.

Is this what you call, ummm, the "Bruce Lee effect"?

Of course- a wager that actually has some significance would be far too damaging to your lies.

As I said- if you can prove that Willie sent a correction to Mark, I will give you $100. If not, I do expect that money.

That would be a wager relevant to your case (also the one where I bet you couldn't explain how the figure was relevant, but you ignored that one altogether).

You're sort of insignificant, huh?

[Totovader]

Yeah, I retyped the whole email in a few minutes from memory. Is that your big evidence of a cover up, gee sounds like a conspiracy theory?

It's evidence that your story doesn't add up.

Copying and pasting from an email or a saved document will not change the case or punctuation of the copied text.

Something else obviously occurred. Either you typed it yourself, or you modified the text. Since you are unwilling to provide any proof of the email itself, this inconsistency to your claim is all I have to go on- and it confirms your history of deception.

[RedIbis]

Of course- a wager that actually has some significance would be far too damaging to your lies.

As I said- if you can prove that Willie sent a correction to Mark, I will give you $100. If not, I do expect that money.

That would be a wager relevant to your case (also the one where I bet you couldn't explain how the figure was relevant, but you ignored that one altogether).

You're sort of insignificant, huh?

That's not what the wager was. Go back and read it again.

[Totovader]

Of course- a wager that actually has some significance would be far too damaging to your lies.

As I said- if you can prove that Willie sent a correction to Mark, I will give you $100. If not, I do expect that money.

That would be a wager relevant to your case (also the one where I bet you couldn't explain how the figure was relevant, but you ignored that one altogether).

You're sort of insignificant, huh?

That's not what the wager was. Go back and read it again.

You proposed a wager- I rejected it based on the fact that your wager was a false assumption. Really, it doesn't matter, because you're incapable of even backing up that claim.

Still- you need to read what I wrote above- the wager I propose is much more to the heart of the matter. The only reason you would choose to ignore it or dismiss it is because you're actually terrified of the facts- and entirely unwilling to be consistent in your claims.

I'm giving you a chance to man up- I don't think it's necessary for me to continue to do this.

[Totovader]

Yeah, I retyped the whole email in a few minutes from memory. Is that your big evidence of a cover up? More like the spacing out of my email was such that I eliminated spaces and probably added the capital letter. Scandalous.

I noticed that you edited your explanation, here. Now all the sudden you know what the difference was?

What software do you use that would put the wrong punctuation in an email that you copied and pasted? That would be an incredibly stupid feature to have in an email application.

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

Not until you buy me dinner.

*kick drum snare*

Xena- posting off-topic is a violation of the Membership Agreement. You need to read that before you post again.
Alright... dinner it is.

[Totovader]

Alright... dinner it is.

It was a joke, dude- start a new thread if you want to discuss something other than this topic.

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

It was a joke, dude- start a new thread if you want to discuss something other than this topic.
Are you serious???

My heart is broken. I thought I was going to have a wonderful evening with a skeptic.

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

Xena, you have repeatedly posted here to make snide remarks about me.
Okay Mark...

I accept your apology.














Why you have chosen to behave this way, only you can say. Whining will not advance any argument you have to make about 9/11. I don't care what you think about me. I do care about the events of 9/11. Do you? You don't show it, and you haven't once attempted to discuss those events on this discussion forum.

Please be aware that you have a choice. No one is forcing you to behave this way. You can continue feebly whining about how much you dislike me and others, or you can behave like a rational adult and discuss and learn. Good luck with your decision. :)[/QUOTE]

[tomwaits]

Xena, let me say this again. You have a bizarre and extremely unhealthy obsession with Mark Roberts. I'm not sure why. Maybe you need some deep reflection to ask yourself, "Why do I care so much about this person on an internet skeptic forum?" Hopefully you can find an answer and get on with your life.

[RedIbis]

I noticed that you edited your explanation, here. Now all the sudden you know what the difference was?

What software do you use that would put the wrong punctuation in an email that you copied and pasted? That would be an incredibly stupid feature to have in an email application.

Stop looking for a conspiracy where there is none. It's called the space bar. When you cut and paste out of an email it leaves lots of unnecessary spaces. I took out the spaces, chopped of the h and mistakenly replaced it with a capital letter. Big rule 8 deal.

[RedIbis]

Xena, let me say this again. You have a bizarre and extremely unhealthy obsession with Mark Roberts. I'm not sure why. Maybe you need some deep reflection to ask yourself, "Why do I care so much about this person on an internet skeptic forum?" Hopefully you can find an answer and get on with your life.

I've been accused of much the same. I can't speak for Xena but I'll say this. When you stroll onto this forum and so much as pose a question that raises doubt about the official story you are greeted with an aresenal of name calling, contentiousness, and some generally silly behavior. Mark is not polite, objective, friendly or civil. When he's met with aggressive tactics his only recourse is to use the ignore function.

[bynmdsue]

Stop looking for a conspiracy where there is none.

Good Advice.

[DGM]

RedIbis:
I find your obsession with the hundred foot claim to be interesting. The funny thing is if Rodriguez was to defend (?) it he would be calling into question his claim of 'last man out'. I think he wouldn't want to draw too much attention to that part of his story.

You present him with quite a dilemma don't you think?

[Totovader]

Stop looking for a conspiracy where there is none. It's called the space bar. When you cut and paste out of an email it leaves lots of unnecessary spaces. I took out the spaces, chopped of the h and mistakenly replaced it with a capital letter. Big rule 8 deal.

No conspiracy is necessary for you to be a consistent fraud.

Your explanation makes no sense- and the fact that you've changed it, and also went from "don't know" to "maybe" to "it was this" doesn't help your case.

Even if it was a simple mistake (somehow you replace letters when you cut and paste)- it shows that the email is not original, that you may have edited the contents. Again, assuming the email is even authentic.

Since you refuse to validate it- it's pointless to even investigate it further. As I said, this just confirms your history of deception.

[tomwaits]

I've been accused of much the same. I can't speak for Xena but I'll say this. When you stroll onto this forum and so much as pose a question that raises doubt about the official story you are greeted with an aresenal of name calling, contentiousness, and some generally silly behavior. Mark is not polite, objective, friendly or civil. When he's met with aggressive tactics his only recourse is to use the ignore function.

Let's say hypothetically that you are right about Mark. So what? You're mad that he put you on ignore? I've read many posts on this forum, and Mark is far more civil than some other JREFers I've seen. What is the obsession with Mark in particular? You two and Willy Rodriguez (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=99462) have a very bizarre grudge against him in ways I can't understand. I think it's time to move on with your life. There are more important things then spending all your posts railing against some internet man named "Gravy".

[RedIbis]

RedIbis:
I find your obsession with the hundred foot claim to be interesting. The funny thing is if Rodriguez was to defend (?) it he would be calling into question his claim of 'last man out'. I think he wouldn't want to draw too much attention to that part of his story.

You present him with quite a dilemma don't you think?

Not at all. If you want to be technical about it. With survivors still in the building, hypothetically speaking, after the collapse, Rodriguez could have been the last man out before the building collapses, not necessarily the last survivor pulled from the rubble.

I acknowledge that this is a bit tedious, but my insistence on this point is that it illustrates how Gravy throws a number on the first page of his analysis and the best he can say is that Rodriguez told him in conversation. This is why investigative journalists carry recorders. Hearsay is not an acceptable source of evidence.

[Nick Terry]

I acknowledge that this is a bit tedious, but my insistence on this point is that it illustrates how Gravy throws a number on the first page of his analysis and the best he can say is that Rodriguez told him in conversation. This is why investigative journalists carry recorders. Hearsay is not an acceptable source of evidence.

That isn't hearsay, I'm afraid. Hearsay would be if Gravy wrote that his source was someone who heard Rodriguez say what he said. Gravy could be cross-examined in court on what Rodriguez said to him directly, and it could not be thrown out as "hearsay".

[Gravy]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3006033&postcount=127

[RedIbis]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3006033&postcount=127

Gravy, do you doubt that the email you are quoting is in fact from Rodriguez?

[Gravy]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3224619&postcount=141
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3224653&postcount=145

[RedIbis]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3224619&postcount=141
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3224653&postcount=145

There's 100 Stundie bucks riding on this. It's a simple question: do you think the email you quoted after I posted it a few months back is in fact from Rodriguez?

ETA: I know you don't agree with Rodriguez's clams, simply, does this sound like Rodriguez?

[DGM]

Not at all. If you want to be technical about it. With survivors still in the building, hypothetically speaking, after the collapse, Rodriguez could have been the last man out before the building collapses, not necessarily the last survivor pulled from the rubble.

I acknowledge that this is a bit tedious, but my insistence on this point is that it illustrates how Gravy throws a number on the first page of his analysis and the best he can say is that Rodriguez told him in conversation. This is why investigative journalists carry recorders. Hearsay is not an acceptable source of evidence.
Kind of a stretch.
“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

Why don't you pick Rodriguez apart for his comments then if absolute accuracy is what you expect. You don't consider that a double standard?

[RedIbis]

Kind of a stretch.

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

Why don't you pick Rodriguez apart for his comments then if absolute accuracy is what you expect. You don't consider that a double standard?


Granted, that statement appears to be inaccurate. That doesn't change the fact that there is no source for Gravy's claim.

[Arus808]

again, red, his SOURCE IS willie rodriguez. If you dont like that, then that is YOUR problem. not ours.

IF willie wants to lie and say that Gravy has lied, then all he has to do is refute grayv's paper which has been up for months, and has had many opportunities to do so, and his refusal to address Gravy's report, speaks actually volumes to his own interests (and of course, that is not telling the truth about the events he experienced that day).

His constant embelishments to his original story shows that he has a problem with telling the truth about what happened that day.

[Gravy]

Since there seems to be some sort of wager going on here, for the record: William Rodriguez has never contacted me to make corrections or clarifications to my paper, nor has he answered specific questions I've asked him with the intent of clarifying things, nor has he responded to my specific invitation to clarify the exact issues discussed here.

Again, this irrelevant nonsense was all dealt with in September: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3006033&postcount=127

I again ask that the rational people here stop rising to the bait of the very troubled RedIbis. Is that really too much to ask?

[Hyperviolet]

Has Gravy ever provided a source for the claim that Rodriguez was 100 ft from the tower when it collapsed? The claim is made on the first page of his Escape Artist paper.

That's a big claim and without a source it's a big error.


RedIbis,

Okay, let's just say it's a big error/lie:
How far was Rodriguez from the building as it collapsed, really?

How big, exactly, is Gravy's lie?

More importantly:
What do you think was his motive to tell this falsehood?

That is; how does this very specific 100ft figure support his conclusions?


Thanks.

[Gravy]

RedIbis,

Okay, let's just say it's a big error/lie:
How far was Rodriguez from the building as it collapsed, really?

How big, exactly, is Gravy's lie?

More importantly:
What do you think was his motive to tell this falsehood?

That is; how does this very specific 100ft figure support his conclusions?


Thanks.Okay, I see that I am unable to convince people not to engage with RedIbis over this nonsense. Hyperviolet, I have stated many times – including to Rodriguez – that if William Rodriguez wants to give me any other figure than "about 100 feet," I will gladly put that in my paper.

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

[uk_dave]

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

Personally, I'd like to see Rodriguez re-enact the events of that day...with a tape measure in hand.

Can you arrange that?

[Gravy]

Personally, I'd like to see Rodriguez re-enact the events of that day...with a tape measure in hand.

Can you arrange that?I know some people in Canarsie who can arrange that, but they don't come cheap.

[RedIbis]

I know some people in Canarsie who can arrange that, but they don't come cheap.

Is it really necessary to take it to that level?

[Totovader]

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



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


Since there are inconsistencies between the two versions you have posted (beyond what I have just pointed out), there is no way that both can be directly from Rodriguez. Furthermore, you have been unable to verify the email itself- letalone which version is supposed to be the accurate one. Your explanations for the discrepencies have made no sense at all, and bring further questions.

I'll take paypal.

[Hyperviolet]

Okay, I see that I am unable to convince people not to engage with RedIbis over this nonsense.
What?

It's not just about you convincing people not to respond. I have a few questions that i'd like to have answered. I see no problem.


Hyperviolet, I have stated many times – including to Rodriguez – that if William Rodriguez wants to give me any other figure than "about 100 feet," I will gladly put that in my paper.

Qui?
When have I contested that you wouldn't?

I'm playing on a hypothetical point; assuming that you're lying, purely for argument's sake, just to see what on Earth RedIbis thinks your gaining from this supposed deception.

Is this unclear?


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

.............................

[RedIbis]

Since there are inconsistencies between the two versions you have posted (beyond what I have just pointed out), there is no way that both can be directly from Rodriguez. Furthermore, you have been unable to verify the email itself- letalone which version is supposed to be the accurate one. Your explanations for the discrepencies have made no sense at all, and bring further questions.

I'll take paypal.

Thanks for the laugh. You're contesting a miscapitalized word. Haven't you noticed that the links Gravy posted are his original responses to this email? Obviously, Gravy knew he was responding to Willie's claims or he wouldn't have bothered responding in detail.

[RedIbis]

I appreciate your polite tone and sincere and reasonable questions.

RedIbis,

Okay, let's just say it's a big error/lie:
How far was Rodriguez from the building as it collapsed, really?

I don't know. I was geniunely curious and expected that Gravy would be able to source the claim. He maintains Willie told him this in conversation. Willie contests this in his email to me.

How big, exactly, is Gravy's lie?
Not big. I've said as much several times already.

More importantly:
What do you think was his motive to tell this falsehood?

Nothing nefarious, just shoddy, subjective analysis.

That is; how does this very specific 100ft figure support his conclusions?





It is irrelevent whether this alone destroys his thesis, along with the Griffith analysis, the paper has a pattern of conjecture.

Thanks

Your welcome. I am honestly interested in calm, civil debate. Gravy is a sharp and aggressive critic in his own right, it's just surprising that he won't withstand some criticism of his work. His repeated requests to end debate with me smack of desperation and silliness.

[Totovader]

Thanks for the laugh. You're contesting a miscapitalized word. Haven't you noticed that the links Gravy posted are his original responses to this email? Obviously, Gravy knew he was responding to Willie's claims or he wouldn't have bothered responding in detail.

I'm not contesting a miscapitalized word- I'm contesting that the two versions of your email do not match, which means it could not have been a copy and paste issue.

I personally do not care what Gravy was responding to- it does not validate the email. That response- I might add- you ignored, and still ignore to this day.

You cannot possibly claim that the two emails are legitimate- because the two are not the same.

Furthermore, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency. It's your job to authenticate the email- something you're entirelly unwilling to do.

So, you're like... totally busted.

[RedIbis]

[QUOTE=Totovader;3227922]I'm not contesting a miscapitalized word- I'm contesting that the two versions of your email do not match, which means it could not have been a copy and paste issue.
QUOTE]


I already told you that it was a copy and paste issue, a copy out of my email and a paste into jref. Even a glance at the last few posts will show that I'm not an internet expert of any sort.

[Gravy]

What?

It's not just about you convincing people not to respond. I have a few questions that i'd like to have answered. I see no problem.

Qui?
When have I contested that you wouldn't?

I'm playing on a hypothetical point; assuming that you're lying, purely for argument's sake, just to see what on Earth RedIbis thinks your gaining from this supposed deception.

Is this unclear?
This has all been discussed, along with RedIbis' problems understanding it, in this thread and elsewhere. Since this thread has my name attached to it, when I see that posts have been made here, I feel that I should read them.

When I see rational people continuing to argue with trolls about completely inconsequential issues that have already been addressed in full, I wonder what's going on.

Okay, you find my behavior and invitation for corrections to Rodriguez to be satisfactory. Rodriguez is the only person who can shed light on this completely inconsequential factoid, and he has declined to do so.

Therefore, what do you hope to resolve by continuing to engage with the very troubled RedIbis about this?

Edit: after reading your last reply to RedIbis, I see that you're not trying to change his mind at this point. Glad to see that.

[Totovader]

I already told you that it was a copy and paste issue, a copy out of my email and a paste into jref. Even a glance at the last few posts will show that I'm not an internet expert of any sort.

It could not have been a copy and paste issue.

The whole idea behind copying and pasting is that you're COPYING and PASTING. Changes in case and punctuation do not suddenly show up.

Your pathetic explanation does nothing to address the issue. In fact, it sort of makes you look worse.

About the money... you can send it to the International Association of Firefighters (http://www.iaff.org). I just would like a copy of the cashed check posted here.

$100 before the end of the month.

[RedIbis]

Therefore, what do you hope to resolve by continuing to engage with the very troubled RedIbis about this?

I'm troubled by your research.

[Hyperviolet]

I appreciate your polite tone and sincere and reasonable questions.



I don't know. I was geniunely curious and expected that Gravy would be able to source the claim. He maintains Willie told him this in conversation. Willie contests this in his email to me.


Okay, there is a disputation over the accuracy of the 100ft figure.
I personally don't think Gravy would make something like that up.
If he did, it would seem to be an awfully pointless deception; as it serves no real purpose.






Not big. I've said as much several times already.



Nothing nefarious, just shoddy, subjective analysis.




I'd like to contest this. You've said here that the supposed error is not big, yet, earlier you said:


That's a big claim and without a source it's a big error.

I'm a touch confused.



Moreover, regarding your word choice "Subjective."
To me, that suggests some kind of personal opinion, or confirmation bias.
Again, i fail to see what the 100ft figure deception serves. If it was 20ft or 1000ft; it serves to change absolutely nothing about Rodriguez's bomb in the basement claim - which is the subject of the paper.

Obviously you think this figure undermines the paper's credibility.
I don't. We'll just have to disagree.

Thanks. That's all i was curious about.

[RedIbis]

It could not have been a copy and paste issue.

The whole idea behind copying and pasting is that you're COPYING and PASTING. Changes in case and punctuation do not suddenly show up.

Your pathetic explanation does nothing to address the issue. In fact, it sort of makes you look worse.

About the money... you can send it to the International Association of Firefighters (http://www.iaff.org). I just would like a copy of the cashed check posted here.

$100 before the end of the month.

What is this, some kind of Jeet Kun Do type tricks?

Tell you what, if Rodriguez posts here (he's in touch with James Randi, so his account here is valid) in the next 30 days and verifies the email, you have to post the receipt of your donation to the charity of my choice. If he doesn't, I'll do the same for you.

Deal?

[Hyperviolet]

This has all been discussed, along with RedIbis' problems understanding it, in this thread and elsewhere. Since this thread has my name attached to it, when I see that posts have been made here, I feel that I should read them.

When I see rational people continuing to argue with trolls about completely inconsequential issues that have already been addressed in full, I wonder what's going on.

I'm not arguing with anyone here.
I'm just trying to pin down what exactly RedIbis thinks, even though i disagree with him. I'm not interested in changing his opinion. It's not like i've asked the same question over and over. I don't have much time as of now to read entire threads, so forgive me if i don't already know all his answers.


Okay, you find my behavior and invitation for corrections to Rodriguez to be satisfactory. Rodriguez is the only person who can shed light on this completely inconsequential factoid, and he has declined to do so.


I just don't know why that question was even pointed at me; i never brought such a thing up. Nor did it seem relevant to anything i posted.
I've read your paper - i've read your welcome invitation for corrections by Rodriguez, and have seen your offer to post any response he has on your website.


Therefore, what do you hope to resolve by continuing to engage with the very troubled RedIbis about this?

I'm not trying to resolve anything. I was trying to find the answers to the very specific questions i posted. And i got them.
I've no intention of debating whether or not the figure is accurate or not.


EDIT: Saw your edit. Everything seems to be clear. This response is therefore needless.
Ignore.

[Totovader]

What is this, some kind of Jeet Kun Do type tricks?

Tell you what, if Rodriguez posts here (he's in touch with James Randi, so his account here is valid) in the next 30 days and verifies the email, you have to post the receipt of your donation to the charity of my choice. If he doesn't, I'll do the same for you.

Deal?

You're ignoring the evidence- big surprise.

As I've pointed out- since the two postings you have made where you're "copying and pasting" this email are not the same, your claim is already debunked.

Really- it's not that tough. There's an inconsistency in your story which cannot be addressed by the claims you're making. This matches with your history of deception.

Whether or not Willie actually did write you an email is not necessarily the question as I have pointed out several times (and has been pointed out to you by others). The fact of the matter is both postings cannot be copy and pasted from the same email- which means you're lying about one or both.

And- since you're unwilling to verify the email- which would be your responsibility- you lose.

Obviously, you're going to be too much of a coward to pay up, so I will make sure everyone sees your deception here and is aware of your lies.

[Derwoods]

What is this epic battle over a meaningless number supposed to accomplish anyways? Dosen't it just point out that you have nothing of any substance to offer? While I am sure it might have some weight for someone who is already inclined to believe such things, these people don't really need any sort of solid factual evidence anyways as long as it FEELS right.

[dbalsdon]

I'm troubled by your research.

Why? What else is Gravy meant to do?

Looks to me, like the ball's in Rodriguez court. It does clearly say on the page, that if he has a problem with anything written there, that he should just email Gravy with his concerns, and they'll be taken into account. Right now, it seems like the only person who has a problem with that, is you?

[Totovader]

If the only thing that all these conspiracists can come up with (and it doesn't even look like they can come up with this much) is Mark being wrong about a number which is entirely insignificant to the claim... then it's no wonder they're so threatened by him.

[Swing Dangler]

No Swing Dangler, Mark Robert's understanding of high explosives is entirely correct. If you read the whole paper (http://www.storysmith.net/Articles/Blast%20Injuries%200406.pdf), as it looks like you did, you will see that it discusses all types of explosions caused by rapid chemical conversions (not nuclear). And it also lists all the types of injuries these explosions can cause on a human body. And if you read it carefully you will see that burn injuries are not something that is associated with high explosives like TNT and RDX.

Burn injuries are associated with low order explosives that deflagrates and does not create a supersonic shock wave like high explosives:

You left something out. Burn injuries are associated with High Order explosives as well. Fallacy of omission I believe.


if you read it carefully you will see that burn injuries are not something that is associated with high explosives like TNT and RDX.
Huh? Of course they are. Let me offer some more evidence to support my contention that Mark is wrong.
1. If you will, examine this Power Point from the Greater New York Hospital Association here (http://www.gnyha.org/45/Default.aspx).
The relevant section from Asymmetric War (Terrorism)
and the Epidemiology of Blast Trauma Timothy E. Davis, MD, MPH,
Lt. Commander, USPHS Commissioned Corps Asst. Professor of Emergency Medicine Emory University
Catherine Y. Lee, MPH, Faculty Associate Center for Disaster Medicine
New York Medical CollegeService is...

Specific for High-order Explosives (HE)
1. Primary (1°) Blast Injury (e.g. blast lung)
– over-pressurization impulse wave – often fatal
2. Secondary (2°) Blast Injury (e.g. glass shards)
– penetrating shrapnel and debris
3. Tertiary (3°) Blast Injury (e.g. traumatic amputation)
– blunt - blast wind throws the individual
4. Quaternary (4°) Blast Injury (miscellaneous)
– burns,[/B] fume poisonings, suffocation, building collapse,
crush injuries, chronic disease flare, mental health
Further in the slide we see...
Blast Trauma does not occur in isolation
1. HE and LE produce dirty contaminated wounds
2. Combined blast, blunt, and penetrating trauma
3.[B] Burns, head, neck, and airway injuries

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

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

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

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

[pomeroo]

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


Further in the slide we see...


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

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

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

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


As well as being one of the most dishonest fantasists around, you are surely one of the most comical. Your own "evidence" refutes your bogus position. What it shows--obviously--is that burns can ACCOMPANY other blast-related injuries. We spotted your trick, Swingie. You are pretending that burns alone suggest a blast-related injury.

As Dr.Adequate asked, how are these deceptions supposed to work?

[Totovader]

So when I grab a hot plate at the restaurant and get a BURN it's because there are explosives in the plate?

Fascinating...

[RedIbis]

So when I grab a hot plate at the restaurant and get a BURN it's because there are explosives in the plate?

Fascinating...

No, it's jet fuel obviously.

[pomeroo]

No, it's jet fuel obviously.


It's great the way you can miss the simplest points.

[RedIbis]

It's great the way you can miss the simplest points.

You said this:

You are pretending that burns alone suggest a blast-related injury.

While supporting Gravy's assumption that jet fuel alone could cause the injuries.

I don't expect you to see the irony in this.

[defaultdotxbe]

You said this:



While supporting Gravy's assumption that jet fuel alone could cause the injuries.

I don't expect you to see the irony in this.
anyone got some copper wire? i want to wrap it around william of ockham so we can harness the power of him spinning in his grave to generate electricity

[funk de fino]

I have seen many quotes from people from the day who had problems seeing due to various things that happened during the collapse etc.

I have not seen any from people who lost their hearing as would have happened with HE explosions going off nearby in an enclosed area. Not one? People were close enough to be burnt by HE but still had their hearing?

Does not compute I'm afraid. Swingie fails again.

[Dave Rogers]

I don't expect you to see the irony in this.

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

Care to spell out where your irony comes into it?

Dave

[pomeroo]

You said this:



While supporting Gravy's assumption that jet fuel alone could cause the injuries.

I don't expect you to see the irony in this.


I'll have to work quickly if I want to be the first person to point out that there is no irony. Duh.

A fireball causing burn injuries? Who woulda thunk it?

Your self-parody is priceless.

UPDATE:
Damn! I had a feeling I wasn't going to make it.

[Dave Rogers]

UPDATE:
Damn! I had a feeling I wasn't going to make it.

Neener neener. Learn to type faster. :p

Dave

[pomeroo]

Neener neener. Learn to type faster. :p

Dave


What can I say?

The closest I've come to producing an original aphorism is: Whenever you start a sentence with, Nobody is dumb enough to..., stop right there--somebody is.

He doesn't expect me to see the irony?! It just doesn't get much better.

[Totovader]

[facetious mode]

I wonder if explosives can cause burns which make the skin slough off...

"Just asking questions"

[/facetious mode]

[Belz...]

The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

Informal logic is no substitute for substantive discussion of reasonably questioned anomalies of the most significant event of the 21st century.

I do believe you've just debunked the entire 9/11 truth movement.

[Belz...]

You're backpedaling on your claim that you talked to Rodriguez, I'm not.

Besides, I can't imagine betting money is permitted. I was thinking along the lines of 100 Stundiebucks, make it a thousand. I'm feeling lucky.

Now, why doesn't THAT surprise me.

[Belz...]

Thanks for the laugh. You're contesting a miscapitalized word. Haven't you noticed that the links Gravy posted are his original responses to this email? Obviously, Gravy knew he was responding to Willie's claims or he wouldn't have bothered responding in detail.

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