Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Par]

I've got a $100 to the charity of your choice that says I didn't paraphrase... 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.

If you intend to continue using the term “stawman”, you may wish to disabuse yourself of your evident ignorance as to its meaning.

 

[Swing Dangler]

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).

LOL. Exactly...More Rodriguez claims....and did you not read the following sentence from Mark:"That's an outright lie. Rodriguez himself spoke to leaders of the NIST investigation."

There is no need to assume, it is clear as day in the article. William did not make that statement.

One I do not see where Rodriguez made the claim that FEMA was..."The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA" especially considering his closed door testimony.
And of course I disagree with the author on that sentence.

Could you explain why Rodriguez failed to "correct" Mark on this insignificant fact?

You mean significant error?
Nope. Ask him. What would be the point in "peer-reviewing" a paper that is an entire hit piece on him, anyway? Especially when people who can read can do it within a few seconds as I did.

One question for you, why haven't Debunker's corrected Mark on his error or for that matter any of the errors? Oh that is right, its not about debunking with regards to Mark, its about cheer leading.

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)?

Of course Rodriguez would disagree with that sentence especially considering the information about NIST. And no, I do not think it came from William. There is nothing indicated that it came from him, especially considering the description of NIST after the sentence in question.

Again, if this is the best you can come up with- your position isn't very solid.

That is the best I can come up with it and my position? It is not a 'position'.
Re-read the title of the thread, chief-Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

This is the third error I've pointed out thus far in this thread and more to come.

 

[RedIbis]

If you intend to continue using the term “stawman”, you may wish to disabuse yourself of your evident ignorance as to its meaning.

I'm well aware of the formal definition. I was simply punning on the phrase, grasping at straws.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Emails-William and Red/ William R. and Gravy's source

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
Now, prove I didn't receive that email please?

I find it quite comical the amount of lambasting that Redibis is getting for quoting an email.

Is there any reason you haven't lambasted Gravy for using an email that hasn't been provided or authenticated?

In Mark Robert's paper, this quote is attributed to William “I only deal with people with PH'd's. Doctorates in the matter. Serious researchers.”

However,the source is an unverifiable email letter to Len Colby so we cannot check the accuracy of the quote as we need to.
Why do we need to? See the quote deception surrounding Danna Spingola.

My question to those attacking Red, why do you accept Gravy's source based upon an email from William Rod. to Len Colby as factual but do not accept Red's email from William as factual?

Ahhh the hypocrisies of debunkers doesn't surprise me anymore.

 

[Totovader]

LOL. Exactly...More Rodriguez claims....and did you not read the following sentence from Mark:"That's an outright lie. Rodriguez himself spoke to leaders of the NIST investigation."

However, it does not say "Rodriguez is lying here". It does not support your accusation.

There is no need to assume, it is clear as day in the article. William did not make that statement.

On the contrary- I believe it would be safe to assume he did, since the article is about him. However, if he did not- like I said- I'm sure Mark would have no problem clarifying the statement.

One I do not see where Rodriguez made the claim that FEMA was..."The only agency that was allowed to investigate the circumstances of the event was FEMA" especially considering his closed door testimony.
And of course I disagree with the author on that sentence.

You mean significant error?

No- it's pretty gosh darn insignificant, kiddo.

Nope. Ask him. What would be the point in "peer-reviewing" a paper that is an entire hit piece on him, anyway? Especially when people who can read can do it within a few seconds as I did.

Apparently, you don't understand what peer-review means.

The point of correcting any mistakes Mark may have made would be to get to the truth. I guess that's not your goal. If Mark absolutely refuses to "fix" any "mistakes", then it would be obvious that's not his goal, either. Since he has been very open about doing this, and can provide several examples where he has, you're up a creek.

One question for you, why haven't Debunker's corrected Mark on his error or for that matter any of the errors? Oh that is right, its not about debunking with regards to Mark, its about cheer leading.

This statement is false. Many "debunkers" have corrected some of Mark's errors, and Mark has corrected the errors of other "debunkers". I don't think you grasp the point, here- we're all very happy to provide the findings of our research to others and correct mistakes that we have made. Again, this concept would be foreign to you since the truth is not your goal.

Of course Rodriguez would disagree with that sentence especially considering the information about NIST. And no, I do not think it came from William. There is nothing indicated that it came from him, especially considering the description of NIST after the sentence in question.

I disagree- but it's a fairly moot point, anyway. Mark's position is still correct- and you happen to agree with him on it. (what are you, his cheerleader?)

That is the best I can come up with it and my position? It is not a 'position'.

The first sentence makes no sense, I'm not sure that downgrading your position helps your case.

Re-read the title of the thread, chief-Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

Re-read the thread itself- the score is still 0.

This is the third error I've pointed out thus far in this thread and more to come.

On the contrary- your "errors" have been pointed out as inconsistent and useless. You're nitpicking on insignificant issues and entirely incapable of defending Rodriguez (or the WEALTH of other information Mark has compiled). That nitpicking is the result of you- not only being forced to confront the evidence- but being put in a position where you have nothing to address it with. Though this thread is specifically about Mark- because of his research, it's terribly damaging to the conspiracist movement itself. I'm absolutely positive you can see this- it shows in your petty squirming.

 

[Totovader]

I'm well aware of the formal definition. I was simply punning on the phrase, grasping at straws.

The "formal definition"? Is that a euphemism for... the definition?

Your pun makes no sense.

 

[RedIbis]

What would be the point in "peer-reviewing" a paper that is an entire hit piece on him, anyway? Especially when people who can read can do it within a few seconds as I did.

One question for you, why haven't Debunker's corrected Mark on his error or for that matter any of the errors? Oh that is right, its not about debunking with regards to Mark, its about cheer leading.


.

Would you mind if I just quote this (bolded) for each instance that someone makes the ridiculous point that Rodriguez should waste his time responding whenver a "debunker" makes specious claims about him?

 

[Totovader]

My question to those attacking Red, why do you accept Gravy's source based upon an email from William Rod. to Len Colby as factual but do not accept Red's email from William as factual?

Before I turn this back on you- let me ask you why you think this is inconsistent? You've arrived at what you think is a contradiction- are you sure your premises are correct?

 

[Totovader]

Would you mind if I just quote this (bolded) for each instance that someone makes the ridiculous point that Rodriguez should waste his time responding whenver a "debunker" makes specious claims about him?

I do- because it's pathetic and useless.

Now all the sudden Mark is no threat? Now all the sudden Willie is too busy to deal with people correcting his lies?

Come on... this is absurd. You just shot your other foot. You're running out of feet.

 

[RedIbis]

My question to those attacking Red, why do you accept Gravy's source based upon an email from William Rod. to Len Colby as factual but do not accept Red's email from William as factual?

Here's the big difference as I see it: When I first posted the email from WRod addressing Gravy's claims, Gravy responded immediately and in depth. Gravy knew that the diction and details were from WRod(sorry but I'm a huge Yankees fan). He didn't challenge the authenticity.

Totvader challenged me and has backpedaled since. It's a basic challenge. If he thinks the email is in any way (uh, besides the infamous "H") a fraud, I wagered that WRod would verify. It's very simple.

 

[Totovader]

RedIbis claims that his copying and pasting of an email resulted from some sort of an error of having too many spaces, and then inadvertently deleting a character, replacing it with the upper case of that character and then adding a comma.

In reality, the differences are a bit more complex than that. His explanation not only does not make any sense, but is contradicted by the posts he has made.

Here are the two versions of what RedIbis claims are the same email, with the bolded parts indicating a change:

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.

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 where the names of the victims used to be (across from the 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.
He implied that Malaysia, because it is a Muslim country, has serious Human Rights violations. Use his same links to Amnesty International and show how many more violations we have here in the USA. Selective bias? I think so. I guess he will never tour in Kuala Lumpur.

William Rodriguez

Are these differences significant? No- but that's the point. I'm simply pointing out that this could not have been a copy/paste error, and it's impossible for both versions to be copied directly from the same email because they are different. Whether Rodriguez actually sent the email or not really does not matter, however, since RedIbis is unwilling to verify the email- this is the only evidence we have to go on that his claims are inconsistent. I'm sure he fails to notice the significance of whining about nitpicking when that's exactly what he's doing.

 

[Gravy]

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.

Spignola met Rodriguez, and in her article she quotes him numerous times, and paraphrases him. These quotes and paraphrases are all consistent with Rodriguez's story. Are we to believe that she made this up for some reason, and that Rodriguez chose not to correct her or me?

Let's look at this in context:

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.

The National Institute of Safety and Technology (NIST), an independent investigative group ignored his plea to tell his story. He contacted them four times but never got a response. NIST was funded by the government which gives you a pretty good idea of just how subjective their findings were. They were paid $35 million dollars and the investigation lasted two years. The taxpayers certainly did not get their money's worth.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762

Besides all the things that are wrong in those two paragraphs, I'm sure everyone spots the hilariously obvious contradiction. Oh, and of course he's lying about NIST not talking with him, as we all know. Somehow he just forgot to tell them about those bombs in the basement.

ETA: by the way, the Rodriguez talk that Spignola attended was organized and funded by the neo-Nazi-run American Free Press. Holocaust denier Eric Hufschmid also helped fund the event.

The more you look, the uglier it gets.

 

[Swing Dangler]

However, it does not say "Rodriguez is lying here". It does not support your accusation.

Really? The title of the page is: More Rodriguez Claims with what appears to be quotes from William Rod. throughout the page. But yet you want us to believe that Rodriguez did not make the FEMA quote?

On the contrary- I believe it would be safe to assume he did, since the article is about him. However, if he did not- like I said- I'm sure Mark would have no problem clarifying the statement.

No- it's pretty gosh darn insignificant, kiddo

Matter of opinion. The quote is an attempt to label William a liar. That is pretty significant in my opinion. Compiled with the other errors, they all add up to hogwash.

Apparently, you don't understand what peer-review means.

Sure I do. See the "peer review thread" where I fully proved that the Journal of 9/11 Studies was a peer-reviewed journal. In this thread, that comment was meant to be sarcastic.

The point of correcting any mistakes Mark may have made would be to get to the truth. I guess that's not your goal.

Really? Why have I corrected him then in each error that I've posted? Apparently getting to the truth is not your goal or you would have corrected it when you first read the paper.

You have read it, correct?

If Mark absolutely refuses to "fix" any "mistakes", then it would be obvious that's not his goal, either. Since he has been very open about doing this, and can provide several examples where he has, you're up a creek.

I don't recall stating Mark refuses to fix mistakes.

This statement is false. Many "debunkers" have corrected some of Mark's errors,

Can you site where "debunkers" have corrected parts of the William Rod. paper he wrote?

and Mark has corrected the errors of other "debunkers". I don't think you grasp the point, here- we're all very happy to provide the findings of our research to others and correct mistakes that we have made. Again, this concept would be foreign to you since the truth is not your goal.

If that were so, I wouldn't be correcting or posting these errors of his.

Re-read the thread itself- the score is still 0.

I didn't realize it was a game to you. 3 errors is not a score, just a simple fact.

On the contrary- your "errors" have been pointed out as inconsistent and useless.

Source?

You're nitpicking on insignificant issues and entirely incapable of defending Rodriguez (or the WEALTH of other information Mark has compiled). That nitpicking is the result of you- not only being forced to confront the evidence- but being put in a position where you have nothing to address it with. Though this thread is specifically about Mark- because of his research, it's terribly damaging to the conspiracist movement itself. I'm absolutely positive you can see this- it shows in your petty squirming.

RedIbis

Quote:What would be the point in "peer-reviewing" a paper that is an entire hit piece on him, anyway? Especially when people who can read can do it within a few seconds as I did.
One question for you, why haven't Debunker's corrected Mark on his error or for that matter any of the errors? Oh that is right, its not about debunking with regards to Mark, its about cheer leading.

Would you mind if I just quote this (bolded) for each instance that someone makes the ridiculous point that Rodriguez should waste his time responding whenver a "debunker" makes specious claims about him?

Not at all! I would be flattered!

Next error, coming up!

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis claims that his copying and pasting of an email resulted from some sort of an error of having too many spaces, and then inadvertently deleting a character, replacing it with the upper case of that character and then adding a comma.

In reality, the differences are a bit more complex than that. His explanation not only does not make any sense, but is contradicted by the posts he has made.

Here are the two versions of what RedIbis claims are the same email, with the bolded parts indicating a change:





Are these differences significant? No- but that's the point. I'm simply pointing out that this could not have been a copy/paste error, and it's impossible for both versions to be copied directly from the same email because they are different. Whether Rodriguez actually sent the email or not really does not matter, however, since RedIbis is unwilling to verify the email- this is the only evidence we have to go on that his claims are inconsistent. I'm sure he fails to notice the significance of whining about nitpicking when that's exactly what he's doing.

There's exactly one word, a single preposition, that has been changed. No other words were changed.

My next bet is that those places where punctuation or capitalization changed is exactly where the spacing had to be cut out. In my haste I could see cutting too many spaces out and my editor instincts kicked in and changed that one character. You might have solved the crime of the century with that one.

Now this is an example of why you're deceptive and not worth my time:

since RedIbis is unwilling to verify the email- this is the only evidence we have to go on that his claims are inconsistent.

You're not interested in the verification of the email, which I've wagered I could do. You've obfuscated, avoided, and basically danced around the real issue: Rodriguez disputes Mark's claims, and that's what the email said and that's what this thread is about. So in deference to the mods and jref, I won't be taking a ride on the Totavader carousel with this nonsense anymore.

 

[Totovader]

Here's the big difference as I see it: When I first posted the email from WRod addressing Gravy's claims, Gravy responded immediately and in depth. Gravy knew that the diction and details were from WRod(sorry but I'm a huge Yankees fan). He didn't challenge the authenticity.

Totvader challenged me and has backpedaled since. It's a basic challenge. If he thinks the email is in any way (uh, besides the infamous "H") a fraud, I wagered that WRod would verify. It's very simple.

This is the 2nd time you have lied regarding the challenge. I have never backpeddled- I offered a much more pertinent set of challenges, and you refused. However, I still pointed out the inconsistencies in your claim- proving that it would be impossible for both to be a copy and paste from the same email. You have not yet provided verification of your payment.

You have refused to authenticate the email, and have not responded to these inconsistencies with any reasonable explanation. You cannot simply ignore the inconsistencies in the two versions because they prove that your copy and paste could not have come from the same email- therefore just saying "uh, besides" is not going to cut it.

You're also ignoring the theme, here- whether an exchange similar to this (since it would be impossible for this exact exchange to take place) occurred, it doesn't matter. William not only never sent these "corrections" to Mark (another $100), but the "corrections" do not affect the claim whatsoever (yet another $100), furthermore it's most definitely not proof that Mark lied (in fact, it's pretty silly to think he did since the supposed error does not affect the argument whatsoever).

It's obvious you're too much of a coward to own up- so I will have to just keep referring to this post in what will certainly be more pathetic and libelous attempts.

 

[SDC]

Sure I do. See the "peer review thread" where I fully proved that the Journal of 9/11 Studies was a peer-reviewed journal. In this thread, that comment was meant to be sarcastic.

You did nothing of the kind. You made various assertions, proving nothing, and providing nothing except wind.

 

[Arus808]

wow, red, you may want to learn to PREVIEW Your replies so you dont abuse the quote tags.

 

[RedIbis]

wow, red, you may want to learn to PREVIEW Your replies so you dont abuse the quote tags.

I did that exactly once on this thread (not that I claim to be an expert at the internets). Will you be making the same snide comment to SDC, right above you?

 

[Totovader]

Really? The title of the page is: More Rodriguez Claims with what appears to be quotes from William Rod. throughout the page. But yet you want us to believe that Rodriguez did not make the FEMA quote?

Appears? I never said Rodriguez did not make the quote- I said that although the article is not quoting him- it's reasonable to assume that the information came from Rodriguez.

Do you understand the difference? Is this going over your head? You seem to be struggling...

Matter of opinion. The quote is an attempt to label William a liar. That is pretty significant in my opinion. Compiled with the other errors, they all add up to hogwash.

Yet all you can do is nitpick on this one? That's not a matter of opinion at all- that's you shoving a flashlight up Mark's rectum and looking for the smallest scrap of dirt. When you can't find one, you start complaining about the process. Really, this is getting ridiculous.

I wish you conspiracists would have just admitted the futility right from the start: if you are forced to examine the evidence, you can't win. Your position is not based on evidence, it's based on faith. When you try and confuse the two, you end up with this nitpicky whining nonsense- and it exposes your position as weak and unsubstantiated.

Sure I do. See the "peer review thread" where I fully proved that the Journal of 9/11 Studies was a peer-reviewed journal. In this thread, that comment was meant to be sarcastic.

I don't see why using the wrong terminology would help your case or be "sarcastic". I never mentioned anything about peer-review, and it's pretty obvious that it has nothing to do with this thread... Some things are only funny in your head, I guess.

Really? Why have I corrected him then in each error that I've posted? Apparently getting to the truth is not your goal or you would have corrected it when you first read the paper.

You have read it, correct?

That doesn't make any sense.

I don't recall stating Mark refuses to fix mistakes.

Wait- you're admitting he does?

I don't think that's a good position for you to take...

Can you site where "debunkers" have corrected parts of the William Rod. paper he wrote?

No, I'll ignore your red herring for now.

If that were so, I wouldn't be correcting or posting these errors of his.

I don't follow- and I fail to see the significance.

I didn't realize it was a game to you. 3 errors is not a score, just a simple fact.

You must have misread- it's 0, not 3.

Source?

Um...

 

[Arus808]

I did that exactly once on this thread (not that I claim to be an expert at the internets). Will you be making the same snide comment to SDC, right above you?

seeing that it only takes one person to point out the abuse of the quote tags, if Swing is actually interested, he'd also take heed about PREVIEWING before posting. This will also show that he is READING replies instead of ignoring them, as he's been doing.

Its not snide at all. If you want people to understand what you are posting, you best hope that you are using the forum tags correctly, and the best way to do that is to PREVIEW your reply before hitting the submit button.