Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[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.
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

 

[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?

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

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, 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.

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. 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 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]

Ladies and Gentlement...the next error...

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.

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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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.

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 Injuries 0406.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: 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.