Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Totovader]

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

The two versions posted above prove this statement wrong.

My next bet is that those places where punctuation or capitalization changed is exactly where the spacing had to be cut out.

Your next bet? This is even more damaging. You went from "I don't know" to "this is probably what happened" to "this IS what happened" to "my next bet"... You seem to be struggling to find an answer to what should be obvious.

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.

Downplaying this doesn't help your case when I've already said that the changes are fairly insignificant to the message (except that the expose you as a fraud).

Like I said many times, copying and pasting does not cause changes in case, the addition of punctuation, or changing of entire words (if you're claiming that you're "editing" Willie's email, you just put the final nail in the coffin).

Why would you edit an email when just copying and pasting it again would be accurate? Furthermore, why would copying and pasting fail to the point that certain words can edited?

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

So you're backpeddling on the wager?

You're not interested in the verification of the email, which I've wagered I could do.

It's difficult for you to maintain this position since I've spent just about every post demanding you do so.

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.

Really- because that's exactly what I've been addressing in these posts. Liar.

So in deference to the mods and jref, I won't be taking a ride on the Totavader carousel with this nonsense anymore.

And thusly, refusing to make your payment. How convenient. Coward.

 

[RedIbis]

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.

Perhaps I misunderstood, allow me to rephrase the question:

What the heck are you talking about?

You don't like the quote tags? If the initial quote is sourced, isn't it acceptable to simply wrap the rest in quote tags. This is convenient and obviously easy to understand since I see Gravy, Toto and many others doing it.

If you're talking about the code screwing up the quote box, I'm guilty of that, as are many others.

So why are you even bringing this nonsense up? And why am I wasting my time trying to figure this out?

 

[RedIbis]

Coward.

Is this what you call the Bruce Lee effect?

 

[Par]

Sure I do. See the "peer review thread" where I fully proved that the Journal of 9/11 Studies was a peer-reviewed journal.

Oh, yes. I remember.

...is there a holocaust denial degree you can earn? Or are there credentials in a holocaust denial class you have taken? If not, [holocaust denial journals cannot be peer reviewed]. A peer review... journal is one in which each feature article has been examined by people with credentials in the article's field of study before it is published.

No, there are no such things as degrees in Holocaust denial. Nor, however, are there such things as degrees in 9/11 denial. Thus, by your own measure, Jones’ effort cannot be a genuinely peer-reviewed publication.

Good job.

 

[Swing Dangler]

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

This is pretty significant in its relationship to what happened in the lobby.

Here is the quote from Mark's Paper found here.

Gravy's link http://www.unison.ie/features/911oneyearon/stories.php?ca=261&si=823151
to the quote is no longer available.

Ronnie Clifford and Jennianne Maffeo
At around 8.45am, Ronnie walked into the lobby of the Marriott, which was connected to the lobby of the north tower by a revolving door. As he was checking his yellow tie in a mirror, he felt a massive explosion, followed several seconds later by a reverberation, a warping effect that he describes as the "harmonic tolerance of a building that's shaking like a tuning fork". He peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. It was filling with haze. People were scurrying to escape what had become a "hurricane of flying debris".

Then the revolving door turned with a suctioning sound followed by a hot burst of wind, and in came a mannequin of the future. A woman, naked, dazed, her arms outstretched. She was so badly burned that Ronnie had no idea what race she was or how old she might be. She clawed the air with fingernails turned porcelain-white. The zipper of what had once been a sweater had melted into her chest, as if it were the zipper to her own body. Her hair had been singed to a crisp steel wool. With her, in the gust of the door, came a pungent odour, the smell of kerosene or paraffin, Ronnie thought.

Then the mannequin became a person, crying for help. Ronnie had little idea what had happened to her, or where exactly she had come from, but he knew that whoever she was, she was his responsibility now.

Now if we examine the original we find Mark Robert's omitting a key fact from the story. From this source itself:

Around 8:45 Ronnie Clifford walked into the lobby of the World Trade Center Marriott, which was connected to the north tower by a revolving door. He checked his yellow silk tie in a mirror and took a deep breath, preparing himself to take the elevator up. Then he felt a massive explosion, followed several seconds later by a kind of reverberation, a strange warping effect that Ronnie describes as “the harmonic tolerances of a building that’s shaking like a tuning fork." Baffled, Ronnie peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. He could see it was filling with black haze. People were scurrying to escape what had become an “incredible hurricane of flying debris.”

Yet Ronnie remained untouched. It was as though the revolving door were a glass portal to another realm, a world of chaos and soot just inches away. The Marriott lobby was calm, the marble surfaces polished and antiseptic. For a few seconds, the two adjacent worlds did not meet.

Then the revolving door turned with a suctioning sound followed by a sudden burst of hot wind, and out came a mannequin of the future. A woman, naked, dazed, her arms outstretched, her hands swollen and blistered beyond recognition. She was so badly burned Ronnie had no idea what race she was or how old she might be. She clawed the air with long warped fingernails turned porcelain white. Her skin was black and glistening red. The zipper of what was once a sweater had melted into her chest, as though it were the zipper to her own body. The woman’s hair was singed to a crisp steel wool, and her barrette was pressed into the back of her head. Her blackened eyes were welded shut. With her, in the warm gust of the revolving door, came a pungent odor, the smell of kerosene or paraffin, Ronnie thought.

The bolded part is the part Mark Roberts left out his paper.

Yet Ronnie remained untouched. It was as though the revolving door were a glass portal to another realm, a world of chaos and soot just inches away. The Marriott lobby was calm, the marble surfaces polished and antiseptic. For a few seconds, the two adjacent worlds did not meet.

The revolving door is just across the south side of elevators 6 and 7. He didn't see a fireball coming from eleveator 6 or 7 that could be 2 out of the 3 explanations for origins from the impact zone. The glass is still intact. But the glass on the westfront is broken. And the marble panels on the west-wall of the core removed.

This proves that the shafts of 6 and 7 weren't the origin of the damage in the lobby and 50 has already been ruled out for the basement damage.
Whats left? Of all lobby-accounts this is the most incriminating part for the official version.
Perhaps this is why Mark left out that part of the lobby story....to support the official version.

1. Why did you leave out that bolded portion of the account, Mark?

Someone may want to quote this as Mark has me on ignore. As good debunkers in search of the truth, you may want to have Mark included the removed portion of the account in his paper. I would hate to have to question his motivation, honesty, and integrity.

 

[Totovader]

Is this what you call the Bruce Lee effect?

Is this what you call answering the question?

I don't know if you think this is some kind of threat or what- but it's pretty obvious you think you're clever in posting quotes from videos on my YouTube page... why that's supposed to be significant is beyond me, but it's clear you're
"grasping at straws".

 

[Gravy]

I'd like to request that the William Rodriguez fans here contact him with any problems you see with my paper about him. I have repeatedly said (including directly to him) that Rodriguez is welcome to contact me with any corrections. He has not done so, nor has he attempted to refute my work in another venues that I'm aware of. Therefore I am confident that the information in the paper accurately reflects Rodriguez's claims.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

You were caught again, Swingie. How can you hope to sneak your clumsy deceptions past people who are so much brighter than you? You presented expert statements showing that burns can ACCOMPANY other signs of explosives-related injury. You have not, AS YOU KNOW, shown that burns alone suggest the use of explosives.

 

[DGM]

You were caught again, Swingie. How can you hope to sneak your clumsy deceptions past people who are so much brighter than you? You presented expert statements showing that burns can ACCOMPANY other signs of explosives-related injury. You have not, AS YOU KNOW, shown that burns alone suggest the use of explosives.

I liked the "parking garage gone".

Where did it go Swing?

 

[Swing Dangler]

I'd like to request that the William Rodriguez fans here contact him with any problems you see with my paper about him.

Request denied!

See the problem is you wrote a paper that has lots of stuff all intended to support a hit piece on William. He didn't write a hit piece on himself. You wrote it...and poorly.
Why should he speak with you anyway?
1. Your not a journalist.
2. Your not a media representative.
3. Your not a government official.
4. Your a tour guide who wrote a hit piece on someone who saved some lives on 9/11.
Now perhaps if you can get a proper media outlet to promote your hit piece then William might be interested in refuting it.

I have repeatedly said (including directly to him) that Rodriguez is welcome to contact me with any corrections

.
Many errors don't necessitate contact with him at all. Mostly those I've pointed out so far require no contact whatsoever. Like the paragraph that you omitted in your lobby account, your "tnt-burn" comment, your misquotes and misrepresentations, etc. and more to follow.

Therefore I am confident that the information in the paper accurately reflects Rodriguez's claims.[/QUOTE

This couldn't be further from the truth.

Stick around, there are more errors that I'm going to post about your paper!

 

[uk_dave]

Maybe Willie should sue Mark.... Swingie, you could represent him in court couldn't you?

I'd pay to watch that.

 

[SDC]

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.

Ah, go ahead and abuse me, as R.Ibis suggested you should. I can take it. I've been married for 29 yrs 9 mos.

 

[Totovader]

Request denied!

That certainly doesn't help your case.

See the problem is you wrote a paper that has lots of stuff all intended to support a hit piece on William.

Ignoring the "hit piece" assertion- why does this mean Willie can't respond?

He didn't write a hit piece on himself. You wrote it...and poorly.

What the crap is the point, here?

Why should he speak with you anyway?

Because he has publicly refuted the statements Willie has made. And that's no joke.

1. Your not a journalist.

Ad hominem.

2. Your not a media representative.

Of course- they're all "in on it", anyway.

Ad hominem.

3. Your not a government official.

Again, contradictory.

Ad hominem.

4. Your a tour guide who wrote a hit piece on someone who saved some lives on 9/11.

Lovely ad hominem with a dash of appeal to emotion.

Look at what you just wrote- are you sure that "your" confident that this is an adequate rebuttal? It looks like a bunch of whiny crap.

Now perhaps if you can get a proper media outlet to promote your hit piece then William might be interested in refuting it.

So now the medium determines the authenticity? (A medium that happens to be "in on it", right?)

Many errors don't necessitate contact with him at all.

In what world? This statement (although you try to be coy) is completely contradictory.

Mostly those I've pointed out so far require no contact whatsoever. Like the paragraph that you omitted in your lobby account, your "tnt-burn" comment, your misquotes and misrepresentations, etc. and more to follow.

You're right- because you debunked yourself. Amazing.

 

[MikeW]

This is pretty significant in its relationship to what happened in the lobby.

If you actually read those two paragraphs you'd notice other differences, for instance "As he was checking his yellow tie in a mirror" in gravy's paper becomes "He checked his yellow silk tie in a mirror and took a deep breath, preparing himself to take the elevator up" in the other. Do you seriously think Mark rewrote this for effect? Or could it be possible that these are different versions of the same story?

No need to guess, though. I searched for Ronnie Clifford at the paper and turned up this:

At around 8.45am, Ronnie walked into the lobby of the Marriott, which was connected to the lobby of the north tower by a revolving door. As he was checking his yellow tie in a mirror, he felt a massive explosion, followed several seconds later by a reverberation, a warping effect that he describes as the "harmonic tolerance of a building that's shaking like a tuning fork". He peered through the revolving door into the lobby of the north tower. It was filling with haze. People were scurrying to escape what had become a "hurricane of flying debris".

Then the revolving door turned with a suctioning sound followed by a hot burst of wind, and in came a mannequin of the future. A woman, naked, dazed, her arms outstretched. She was so badly burned that Ronnie had no idea what race she was or how old she might be. She clawed the air with fingernails turned porcelain-white. The zipper of what had once been a sweater had melted into her chest, as if it were the zipper to her own body. Her hair had been singed to a crisp steel wool. With her, in the gust of the door, came a pungent odour, the smell of kerosene or paraffin, Ronnie thought.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/a...lucky-one-but-then-tragedy-struck-292468.html

The additional information may be useful, but it's not present in Mark's source: he's omitted nothing.

 

[The Big Dog]

Good find, Mike.

Now Swing has to explain the significance of the differences in those two source materials.

I guess Swing's explanation will be that he was talking about only the parts of the lobby that were not on fire, not the parts that were!

 

[beachnut]

error man on errors

1. Your not a journalist.
2. Your not a media representative.
3. Your not a government official.
4. Your a tour guide who wrote a ...

Errors; please no more errors. You are full of errors. Yes, you are. Or is that, is.

 

[Darat]

Note to all participants who have posted emails: Posting an email from someone without their permission is a breach of copyright, please confirm that the copyright holder (i.e. the person who wrote the email) has given permission for you to publish their email (the best and quickest way to achieve this is to ask them to send me an email to darat@randi.org confirming your permission). If I do not receive confirmation within 24 hours I will simply remove the emails and issue infractions.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[dbalsdon]

k. Since i can admit mine wasn't serious, i've just removed mine, i've just asked the mod to remove it.

 

[DavidJames]

Swing and Red, you believe the U.S. govt is complicit in the murder of 3000 people yet all you do is nit pick some insignificant points on Gravy's paper. None of which, if true, does anything to support their fantasy.

Why are you not marching in the streets?
Why aren't you pounding down the doors of the media?
Why aren't you petitioning your representatives?
Why aren't you demanding justice from the authorities?
Why haven't you secured legal services and pursue legal remedies?

Instead of trying to inflict grave wounds on the perpetrators, you are attempting to flick tiny specs of dust from a tour guide? Is it about "the truth", or justice? Or is really about scoring a couple of points on a skeptics forum?

 

[ref]

Those interested in the case of William Rodriguez, should read this article (linked on Mark's paper as well): http://911stories.googlepages.com/RodriguezSun.jpg

It's an earlier article on William. There are some interesting quotes, such as:

"Being a hero has opened a lot of doors"

"Mr. Rodriguez says he learned so much (as an assistant of Randi) that 'I could start my own church and perform my own miracles'"

"His (William's) small, immaculate office is packed with books like 'Talking the Winning Way' and 'Twenty-Five Steps to Power and Mastery Over People'"

"I had done TV before, so I knew how to manipulate the media"