• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
RedIbis said:
I don't expect you to see the irony in this.
Click to expand...

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
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Neener neener. Learn to type faster. :p

Dave
Click to expand...


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.
 
[facetious mode]

I wonder if explosives can cause burns which make the skin slough off...

"Just asking questions"

[/facetious mode]
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ladies and Gentlemen...the next error in Mark's Paper.

Misrepresentation error.
From Mark's paper here.
"The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA" Source


That's an outright lie. Rodriguez himself spoke to leaders of the NIST investigation. NIST produced the 10,000 page engineering study that is the "official" version of the tower collapses. Their investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 is ongoing. Independent engineering investigations into the collapses were done. None support the conspiracist claims in any way. No relevant experts who studied the issues agree with the conspiracy-mongers.
Click to expand...

Here is the original quote from Mark’s source:
William spent hours testifying before the 9-11 Commission behind closed doors. His testimony as an eye witness does not appear anywhere in the 576 page report. But after all, Bush told us who did it, so why bother to examine the evidence or talk with the witnesses. The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA.
Click to expand...

Mark, using deceptive and dishonest tactic (or very sloppy research) tries to attribute this FEMA quote to William. However, if one only checks the facts, this quote is from the author of the article, Deanna Spingola not William Rodriquez. But instead of being factual, Mark again labels William a liar based upon a quote he didn't even make.

Why did you attribute this quote to William, Mark, when he didn't say it? Was it to manufacture a lie to be attributed to William or was it just an error?

Someone may want to quote this because Gravy has me on ignore.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
Misrepresentation error.


Here is the original quote from Mark’s source:


Mark, using deceptive and dishonest tactic (or very sloppy research) tries to attribute this FEMA quote to William. However, if one only checks the facts, this quote is from the author of the article, Deanna Spingola not William Rodriquez. But instead of being factual, Mark again labels William a liar based upon a quote he didn't even make.

Why did you attribute this quote to William, Mark, when he didn't say it? Was it to manufacture a lie to be attributed to William or was it just an error?

Someone may want to quote this because Gravy has me on ignore.
Click to expand...

I don't see that he does attribute the quote to Rodriguez (although the page is "More Rodriguez claims", he is sourcing the article)- at worst Gravy is assuming that the information was obtained from Rodriguez, which I would think is a fair assumption.

However, your disagreement with this would indicate that you disagree with the author (and probably Rodriguez).

Could you explain why Rodriguez failed to "correct" Mark on this insignificant fact? Or why Rodriguez failed to correct the article itself? Do you believe that Rodriguez disagrees with the assertion in the article, or did it possibly come from him (although it was not a quote)?

Again, if this is the best you can come up with- your position isn't very solid.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Someone may want to quote this because Gravy has me on ignore.
Click to expand...
Your post was not worth the quote. You are quibbling about BS stuff SD. You have lost this point, so why even quote the junk you are quibbling about. So far you are 0, zero, zip. Give up, the only person who can correct these errors and lies is William. William has to correct the bad press errors which he was responsible for. Only William, you have failed here as you do on all topic about 9/11. Why is all of 9/11 truth so dumb?
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

I guess you have some explaining to do...PATH level platform cave-in, collapsed wall, parking garage gone, destroyed machine shop, legs chopped off(although not in the basement) people being blown back and knocked down, etc...you know lots of things that fit perfectly and follow quite expectedly a high explosive event.

I've already presented expert statements that burns are associated with high explosive events there is no need to state otherwise, unless you want to argue with the sources I quoted.
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've got a $100 to the charity of your choice that says I didn't paraphrase. You can wager the same to a charity of my choice if Rodriguez posts here and substantiates the email.

This will be the last time I explain this. I cut and pasted out of the email from Rodriguez to me. There was a lot of unnecessary spacing. I cut it out, cut out an h and replaced it with a capital H by mistake.

You guys are grasping at strawmen if you think this is a big deal or that it invalidates my initial claim.

Totovader will not accept this simple challenge.
 
Swing Dangler said:
I guess you have some explaining to do...PATH level platform cave-in, collapsed wall, parking garage gone, destroyed machine shop, legs chopped off(although not in the basement) people being blown back and knocked down, etc...you know lots of things that fit perfectly and follow quite expectedly a high explosive event.

I've already presented expert statements that burns are associated with high explosive events there is no need to state otherwise, unless you want to argue with the sources I quoted.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself, here- or rather, ignoring the post itself and then just replying with "I guess you have some explaining to do" as if that's a valid response.

As he pointed out- burns of this type are not associated with explosives. "Burns" is not the question- it's these kinds of burns (your fallacy of equivocation). The fact that stuff fell down is... not the least bit unexpected. Furthermore, claiming that it had to be explosives when there's no evidence of explosives is obviously a bit of a problem...
 
RedIbis said:
I've got a $100 to the charity of your choice that says I didn't paraphrase. You can wager the same to a charity of my choice if Rodriguez posts here and substantiates the email.

This will be the last time I explain this. I cut and pasted out of the email from Rodriguez to me. There was a lot of unnecessary spacing. I cut it out, cut out an h and replaced it with a capital H by mistake.

You guys are grasping at strawmen if you think this is a big deal or that it invalidates my initial claim.

Totovader will not accept this simple challenge.
Click to expand...

Stop lying- I accepted your Challenge, refuted your claim, and have not yet received confirmation of your payment to the IAFF.

Your explanation makes no sense, and has changed more than once.

Do you even know what a strawman is?

And if you think your original claim is "a big deal or that it invalidates the claim", you're high. You're shooting yourself in the foot, here.
 
So why should anyone believe your word, over Gravy's about this? Just copying and pasting something that you claim to be from an email, doesn't mean it is from an email.

Hell, while were at it.. I received an email from Dylan Avery the other day, claiming that LC is just a joke. This is an extract from it

Dylan Avery's email to me said:
I created Loose Change to to expose to the world, how many idiots there are that believe any **** they see online.
Click to expand...


Now, prove I didn't receive that email please?
 
Last edited:
In summary (and finality), here's what we know:

1) There is no evidence "Mark lied".
2) Yet, the claim is still made... and unsupported.
3) Even if Rodriguez did say "Mark lied", that's not proof that he did- and there's no proof Rodriguez clarified that in the first place.
4) The nitpicking itself is insignificant. If Mark had any reason to change it- I see no reason to expect that he would not.
5) Furthermore, Rodriguez never sent these corrections to Mark- to call him a liar and then never bother to try to make those "corrections" when it demands such on the page itself is inconsistent.

Therefore, my original wager is far more prudent, and irrefutable. Mark never received the corrections, and Red cannot explain how it would be pertinent to be in error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom