Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[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]

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. 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. 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, 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.
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. 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.
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.