Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[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 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 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.

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]

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, 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, 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, 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.

 

[The Big Dog]

"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.