Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Gravy]

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...

First, Swing Dangler is misusing "your." "You're" is the contraction of "you are." Example: So you're telling me that black helicopters fly over your house every night?

Next, some history (all bolding is mine):

• On April 29, 2007, Rodriguez agreed to Ron Wieck's invitation to appear with me on Hardfire. He posted his initial acceptance on this forum:

Hi, thanks for the invitation. I will love to appear and since my actual agenda is full, I will find a date in the coming weeks to help you. I like Mr. Mark Roberts very much and agree with him in many aspects. It will be a humble honor to have a dialogue with him. what number my organizer should call you at?

William Rodriguez

Within minutes of learning that Ron (pomeroo) had posted that invitation here as "Challenge to William Rodriguez," Rodriguez changed his mind and said he would not appear on the show. That made me wonder how much more there was to his story, which caused me to do the research that resulted in William Rodriguez, Escape Artist.

• On May 20, 2007 I sent this email to William Rodriguez. He was the first person I notified about my paper.

Dear William,

I have created a website where I discuss many of your claims about 9/11:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

I hope you will take the time to read it carefully. I will gladly post your response to any or all of my points.

Sincerely,
Mark Roberts

• On May 21 he replied briefly and requested that before I proceed further, I contact James Randi to get more background information on Rodriguez. He later reminded me of that request in a post on this forum, as if that would somehow change the truth of his claims or how I approached them.

In that email Rodriguez wrote, "Keep up the good work and I do support your position and quest to clear up points."

• Later on May 21, Rodriguez emailed again and called my paper "an effectively good paper" and "well done." He said, "The only problem I have is when you get into the personal insults, personalising the issue , and the part at the end" [He quoted this section]:

On May 5, Rodriguez wondered if I am gay, and wrote, "anybody have info on that? Not that it is relevant to our debate but it will explain a lot of things if true."

Mr. Rodriguez, what would it explain if I were gay?

Rodriguez explained that he is not homophobic, that the quote was taken out of context, and that I should have included the part where he said this didn't matter in regards to the debate. He wasn't reading carefully: that disclaimer is right there in the passage he quoted, and the quote is not out of context or misleading.

That is the only specific thing he criticized, and he got it wrong.
​

• Still later on May 21, Rodriguez forwarded a short email he had received, in which the sender said he had read my paper and castigated him with strong language for lying. Rodriguez said this was "my work" and cryptically wrote, "Wait for my action."

• I replied, "William, my work is what I wrote and compiled. I welcome any specific response you may have to that."

• He replied that he'd rather not get into a back-and-forth debate, but would instead argue his case in national media interviews.

• I replied,

Dear William,

I appreciate your not wanting to get into a back-and-forth debate, but I hope you know that national media interviews are hardly the best way to reply to the many detailed points in my paper.

I began looking into your claims because it seemed that you were avoiding hard questions. Those questions aren't going away. I hope that as someone who says he's fighting for the truth, you will at least carefully consider the evidence I laid out.

If at any time you feel like writing a response, my offer remains open to print it next to my piece.

• On June 4, Rodriguez emailed me with a link to a Nico Haupt post about him.

• On August 10 and 12 I emailed him, asking for clarification about information about him that I had gathered in my John Schroeder research. He did not reply. When that paper was finished, he did say he was sending it to 65,000 people on his mailing list.

• When participating in this forum, Rodriguez has repeatedly avoided answering tough questions.

• In his signature on the Loose Change forum, Rodriguez includes a link to my paper about him.

• In a post where he said, "Thank you Gravy, and keep it coming," Rodriguez says he sent the link to my paper to the 9/11 families on his mailing list. About his behavior, he wrote, " You do not like it? get together a group of survivors and do your own show-presentation-demostration-exhibition-fair." He signed that post "William Rodriguez Escape Artist."

• On this forum, Rodriguez addressed me as "My dear promoter."

• In this post he wrote, "I have a show to do in couple of minutes," which he then changed to, "I have a presentation to do in couple of minutes." A telling slip, I think.

• At 1:55 in this video made in Liverpool, Rodriguez says,

"There was a guy in New York that was, writing an article, a hundred and three pages [sic] article, trying to debunk me. And instead of actually destroying me, what it actually did, it incremented the level of requests all over the world to give presentations. I was just, like, you know, he helped me immensely. So that's what we're doing now."

• In this post Rodriguez wrote,

Thank you Mark for the tour, is going great!

William Rodriguez Escape artist
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

• In this post he wrote,

Oh no sweat, it did help indeed! It got me on the George Galloway Show, BBC 5 Live, The James Whales Show and on The Agenda. We added Italy,Penang, Kuala lumpur and we are arranging for a posible Ibiza and Belgium.

William Rodriguez Escape artist
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

In the video linked above, which was shot in July, Rodriguez says that he wants all of this touring to be over by December, so that he can spend time with his family, and so that he can take the time to grieve. "My grieving process has been in front of the media this whole time." That's a curious statement, since Rodriguez consistently claims that he's ignored by the media.

I don't know what changed his mind, but last month Rodriguez announced that he was embarking on a new international tour, with my JREF forum nickname attached to it:

• Here, his entire post was "I am 9/11."

To summarize,

"It will be a humble honor to have a dialogue with him."
"Keep up the good work"
"An effectively good paper"
"Well done"
"The only problem I have"
"Helped me immensely"
"Thank you Gravy, and keep it coming."
"Thank you Mark for the tour, is going great!"
"It did help indeed."
"International 'Gravy' truth tour"
"I am 9/11."


Rodriguez hasn't tried to rebut my paper because he's quite happy with it. I wonder why his fans aren't.

 

[Brainache]

Just to be a total nit-picking jerk, I thought I'd point out this post and ask why none of our intrepid Truthseekers have picked up on it...:

Since Rodriguez has my email address, and has an account here, I await any corrections he may have, as I have since May.

Sorry to see this idiocy continuing. I won't be checking this thread again.

Ah HA!!! See, I've caught you in a blatant misrepresentation of the facts Mr So-Called Gravy!!!


<Does stupid dance of pointless victory>

 

[RedIbis]

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

Thanks for your patience. I'm confident you'll receive the confirmation and the email will be verified.

 

[Norseman]

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.

This is quoted directly from the presentation you linked in your post above Swing Dangler:

Low-order explosives (LE) = deflagration
􀀁 Subsonic – explosion occurs < the speed of sound
􀀁 NO blast over-pressurization wave
􀀁 Not detonation
􀀁 LE does not mean “small” – 9-11 attacks involved LE
􀀁 LE injuries can be characterized as
a) shrapnel, b) blunt, c) crush, d) burn
􀀁 E.g., Napalm, gunpowder, Molotov cocktail,
many petroleum-based (but ANFO is HE)

Did you read this part of the presentation, especially the bullet point I have bolded Swing Dangler. Or maybe you just skipped straight ahead to high explosives. Your expert disagrees with you.

As already pointed out by pomeroo burns do no come alone in high explosives detonations. None of the burn victims suffered from primary blast injuries, not even a ruptured ear drum (TM), that rules out high explosives completely. Did you also notice that part you quoted only mentions 1st and 2nd degree burns, thats because high explosives only causes flash burns to uncovered parts of the skin(heat radiation if you are very close to the detonation). While the burn victims from WTC suffered very severe 3rd degree burns because the where caught inside the jet fuel fireballs that burns for a substantially longer time than an detonation.

 

[Gravy]

Just to be a total nit-picking jerk, I thought I'd point out this post and ask why none of our intrepid Truthseekers have picked up on it...:

Ah HA!!! See, I've caught you in a blatant misrepresentation of the facts Mr So-Called Gravy!!!

<Does stupid dance of pointless victory>

Yup. I'm torn between feeling that I have a duty to read this thread because it's supposed to be about errors I've made, and greatly disliking the signal-to-noise ratio. I should probably have left it at "email me with your critiques," but that's obviously not going to stop the deliberately ignorant from posting nonsense here, or rational people from feeling that they should respond to the stupidity.

 

[Brainache]

Yup. I'm torn between feeling that I have a duty to read this thread because it's about my work, and greatly disliking the signal-to-noise ratio. I should probably have left it at "email me with your critiques," but that's obviously not going to stop the deliberately ignorant from posting nonsense here, or rational people from feeling that they should respond to the stupidity.

Well I just thought it was strange that none of the Truthers were giving you a hard time about it, given they seem to delight in such trivia.

I totally understand your position, but the temptation to be a nit-picking jerk is very hard for me to resist.

 

[tomwaits]

The "International Gravy Tour" is truly one of the most rediculous things I have ever seen. He has serious problems.

 

[pomeroo]

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

Can it really be true that the writer of an e-mail is protected by copyright laws? How does an e-mail differ from a letter, which becomes the property of the recipient?

 

[Gravy]

The "International Gravy Tour" is truly one of the most rediculous things I have ever seen. He has serious problems.

I don't expect he'll actually call the tour that, if and when it comes about. But who knows? He's not known for his sound judgment. I mention it because the ignoranti here want to know why Rodriguez should respond to my paper. Well, look at all the public attention he gives it, while never addressing its facts. It's a bit risky for him, but also clever. By mentioning my detailed investigation, he can pretend as though he's dealt with the specifics therein.

 

[Gravy]

Can it really be true that the writer of an e-mail is protected by copyright laws? How does an e-mail differ from a letter, which becomes the property of the recipient?

Generally, you don't have the right to publish a letter in full without its author's permission. With email, it's assumed that you retain ownership of the file, as you would with a paper letter. For example, the email's author wouldn't have the right to demand that you destroy the email. However, the author's privacy is protected by right of first publication. That said, U.S. courts generally recognize the "fair use" defense when the value of the author's work isn't being affected economically by its publication. Whether something falls under the fair use provision or under the privacy laws seems a bit fuzzy, and of course the JREF forum admins determine what can and can't be published here. That's why I choose to paraphrase emails or to publish quote snippets. I did publish all of a paranoid wackomatic Jason Bermas email once, but that was probably wrong of me to do.

 

[Norseman]

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.

There you just painted your self in to the corner Swing Dangler. The below quote is also on Gravy's site.

Don (Parente) noticed that the doors of elevators number 6 and 7 had been blown out."

Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11, 2001 Experiences of Port Authority Engineers at the World Trade Center


Thats because the south side doors stood up to pressure inside the shafts, while the north side doors of 6 and 7 did not and released the jet fuel vapor into the confined space between the elevator banks where it deflagrated violently, shooting a fireball towards the concourse and another towards the west side entrance. Had this large fireball been caused by high explosives the 1st floor of WTC 1 would have been completely destroyed. You can be quiet sure that the south side doors of 6 and 7 also had been blown out and that Ronnie had been shredded by flying glass bits and the blast wave.

Let us not forget this part of Ronnie Clifford's story where she tells him what happened:

She had been standing outside the north tower next to a man she knew, waiting for a bus, when she heard a loud crash above. In an effort to protect them from falling debris, a security guard herded everyone inside the tower's lobby. Suddenly, she told Ronnie, something bright and hot enveloped her, a vapour maybe. She thought it could have dropped down the elevator shaft.

And this from New York Times:

To escape the falling debris, he turned around and was inside a revolving door when he noticed the lobby fill with a yellowish haze. He now suspects that may have been jet fuel exploding out of the elevator shaft. Then he heard a loud boom and saw a fireball coming toward him. The next thing he remembers is being thrown clear of the building and being on fire.

And this one also from New York Times :

She walked through two sets of doors into the lobby of the north tower shortly before 9 a.m., and heard ''a whistle, the loudest sound you can possibly imagine,'' she said. She still does not know for sure what it was, but thinks it may have been the elevators plunging down their shafts. She had no idea that a jet had hit the building.

After the sound came the fireball, exploding from the elevators where jet fuel had cascaded down the shafts.

''The fire hit me and spun me around and half pushed me out the doors,'' she said. She pushed open the second set of doors, which were searing hot, and ran outside. She was aflame, in agony.

Aircraft impact -> falling elevators -> jet fuel fireballs. Or are you preferring to remain in your corner SD?

 

[Gravy]

Excellent posts, Norseman. I'll add those quotes to my paper.

 

[Gravy]

There you just painted your self in to the corner Swing Dangler. The below quote is also on Gravy's site.

Courage Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: A Report of the September 11, 2001 Experiences of Port Authority Engineers at the World Trade Center


Thats because the south side doors stood up to pressure inside the shafts, while the north side doors of 6 and 7 did not and released the jet fuel vapor into the confined space between the elevator banks where it deflagrated violently, shooting a fireball towards the concourse and another towards the west side entrance. Had this large fireball been caused by high explosives the 1st floor of WTC 1 would have been completely destroyed. You can be quiet sure that the south side doors of 6 and 7 also had been blown out and that Ronnie had been shredded by flying glass bits and the blast wave.

And in the south tower, an elevator mechanic reports:

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car. http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jones.htm

But Swing Dangler knows all this. He's just here in a pathetic bid for attention.

 

[JAMartell]

z10.invisionfree.com / Loose_Change_Forum / index.php?showtopic=20145&st=0#entry14727877

 

[A W Smith]

z10.invisionfree.com / Loose_Change_Forum / index.php?showtopic=20145&st=0#entry14727877

why not post your entire LC post here instead of a half assed broken link? do you fear it will be taken apart and you exposed as a fool? Go ahead. we are waiting.

 

[LashL]

But Swing Dangler knows all this. He's just here in a pathetic bid for attention.

True, but I am still waiting to see his apology to you for accusing you of deliberately removing a line from an article you cited when, in fact, the line did not ever exist in the article you cited.

I won't hold my breath, of course, and I am not at all surprised by his absence in the circumstances.

As an aside, I still find it difficult to fathom the breadth and depth of paranoia and conspiracy lunacy it requires for a person to take two separate articles, purport to have read them, and then tell a big fat porkie about someone else and accuse that someone else of deceit, based solely upon his own stupid conflation of the two articles into one, and his own stupid misconception.

I know, I know, twoofers do this all the time, and I shouldn't be surprised. But I still find such behaviour disturbing. *sigh*

 

[dbalsdon]

I know that it has nothing to do with controlled demolition, so you probably won't pay attention, but give it a shot.

So, while debunkers pretty much dismiss anything to do with CD(as it's already been debunked over and over), do truthers automatically dismiss anything that doesnt back up the CD 'theory'?

 

[JAMartell]

why not post your entire LC post here instead of a half assed broken link? do you fear it will be taken apart and you exposed as a fool? Go ahead. we are waiting.

ummm...no. More like I didn't feel like reformatting it for a bunch of guys who aren't going to debunk anything I wrote, but rather, just throw insults my way. Which is what you just did.

 

[LashL]

why not post your entire LC post here instead of a half assed broken link? do you fear it will be taken apart and you exposed as a fool? Go ahead. we are waiting.

New members cannot post links here until they get to 15 posts.

It's an anti-spamming mechanism put in place by the forum to prevent idiots from signing up and spamming their nonsense all over the place, at least until they're managed 15 posts. And a darned fine idea, by the way. Most tinhatters have very short attention spans, after all.

 

[LashL]

dupe