Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[JAStewart]

Its a shame that you're a victim to his lies, but I'm impressed that you can keep a very relaxed, calm approach to correcting him.

Kudos.

 

[ref]

Mark, did you reply to the entire mailing list "Samandu" used, or only to William?

 

[RedIbis]

Gravy, did you receive permission to reprint the email?

 

[uk_dave]

Gravy, did you receive permission to reprint the email?

Yeah, I said he could.

 

[dbalsdon]

Reprinted here because he sent it to thousands of people.

That's his reason for posting it. Did you ignore that bit.

 

[RedIbis]

Gravy is assuming it was sent to thousands of people. Even if true, the list could be private, and therefore, the message is not really public.

I don't really know the specifics of the jref policy on this, but after the last post by Darat, it sounds like a good idea to get permission before posting any email.

 

[Gravy]

Mark, did you reply to the entire mailing list "Samandu" used, or only to William?

I only have Rodriguez's email address. It came from his account.

 

[Swing Dangler]

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

Mark Robert’s fallacious claim-“It would take truly staggering amounts of explosives to bring down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

Expert statement on the amount of explosives it would take:

Van Romero-The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,"The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. Romero said. Source: Repost from 2001, Albuquerque Journal Cached Here

Gravy gets it wrong again. As we can see it would not take a "truly staggering amount of explosives despite the conditions Gravy would like to include in his statement.

Oh and before the cheerleaders pick up their pom poms, I'm very well aware that Van Romero doesn't believe explosives were used in the Towers after he recanted his position on the collapse. That doesn't change the fact about how much explosives it would take, and that amount is not "truly staggering' as Mark would like you to believe.

Gravy-Quote:
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.

Oh Mark you are good at this.

Why would you post a description from the South Tower in an attempt to prove something that did not happen in the North Tower actually happened ?

Pretty deceptive, Mark, I must say. Surely you know that Ronnie's account was within inches of the North Tower lobby, but yet you post something from the South Tower to dispute that.

And it isn't about attention of course. It is about facts and truth or lack there of in your paper and the title of the thread.

Give him a break. As someone who's obviously never practiced the art, you have no appreciation for how time-consuming getting absolutely everything wrong is. Swing has to scrupulously examine every statement of his to be sure he didn't accidentally get something right. He doesn't just fling poo like some truthers do. That's easy. Swing is a poo artist

The errors I have listed in your paper are spot on. Your character attack in the face of those posted errors reveals quite a lot about your character and for that matter the paper itself.

Your reaction to those errors in the form of character attacks serve to only prove Kevin Ryan's descriptions of JREF debunkers correct. Not only that your avoidance of those mistakes only reaffirms your poor research or dishonesty or both.
Your violation of JREF rules of attacking the character have been noted and reported.

Norseman

I don't dispute those quotes. But what I believe in those accounts is a time frame difference between the first fireball and the subsequent explosion from something else. You can respond to the analysis that examines this phenomenon here. I won't attempt to derail this by thread by posting all of the information.

 

[Swing Dangler]

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

Next error in Mark Robert’s paper.

Unsubstantiated Claim-

One thing to keep in mind is that firefighters searched all the floors that Rodriguez was on and many above. As they were trained to do after a terrorist attack, many of them were wary of the possibility of secondary explosive devices. No evidence of such devices was found on 9/11 or amongst the billions of pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by NYPD detectives and FBI Evidence Response Teams at Fresh Kills landfill. No sign of explosives or incendiary use was reported by anyone, including the hundreds of ironworkers who became intimately familiar with the steel, nor can any such sign be discerned in any photograph of the ruins.

Mark:
1. Can you site where the NYPD detectives and the FBI Evidence Response Teams were actively searching for explosive devices or the effects they might have on the debris?

2. Can you source where anyone, including ironworkers were searching for the effects of explosive devices on the debris?

3. If you can’t cite the motivation for the search debris search efforts, why did you include this opinion dressed as facts in your paper?

 

[The Big Dog]

Swing:

Van Romero?? You cannot be serious! He debunked himself six years ago. I cannot believe it, you have hit the bottom and have begun digging!

We remain waiting patiently for you to retract your lie about the sources Ronnie's account.

I also await your retraction that the WTC was subject to massive smoke and fires, but as I see you are digging yourself a deeper hole, I'll cut you some slack.

 

[Gravy]

Swing:

Van Romero?? You cannot be serious! He debunked himself six years ago. I cannot believe it, you have hit the bottom and have begun digging!

We remain waiting patiently for you to retract your lie about the sources Ronnie's account.

I also await your retraction that the WTC was subject to massive smoke and fires, but as I see you are digging yourself a deeper hole, I'll cut you some slack.

You're either going to have to track his errors on a spreadsheet, or put him on ignore. I find the latter option to be highly satisfactory.

 

[chillzero]

Please take any further discussion of emails and copyright to the forum mgt section, and not in this thread.

Thankee!

 

[LastChild]

down the towers without pre-weakening them and without lengthy and direct access to bare steel columns for the placement of precision demolition charges.”

This is something I will never understand. How the debunkers claim it would take a vast amount of explosives to bring down the buildings but a plane crash into a few floors (near the top no less) can accomplish it with no problem and three times with two planes. Apparently plane crashes and jet fuel are so efficient at taking down buildings that in addition to the two towers they demolished they also knocked down the building across the street completely. Didn’t even need jet fuel ignited fire for that one. Three buildings complete global collapse and not even one firecracker. So why the need for vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes?

 

[SDC]

With regard to the Van Romero comment per S.Dangler... Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

1/ You used him as your source of expert information.
2/ You then acknowledged that he had retracted his statements.
3/ Which means #1 is not valid. He corrected himself.

QED.

 

[The Big Dog]

Dear Swing:

"Unsubstantiated Claim" does not equal error, Champ. One would have expected that in a thread about errors, perhaps you'd have been able to come up with some, you know, EVIDENCE to show that there was an error.

What is more, you don't even claim there is an error. So, you don't claim that

1. evidence of explosive devices was found on 9/11 or amongst the billions of pounds of debris at Fresh Kills landfill.
2. signs of explosives or incendiary use was reported by anyone,
3. signs of explosives or incendiary use can be discerned in any photograph of the ruins.

You are arguing rhetoric. Is that what the Truth Movement has become, wordsmiths?

/Can someone set up a spread sheet? Pretty soon Swing is going to be complaining about the Font.

 

[Gravy]

This is something I will never understand. How the debunkers claim it would take a vast amount of explosives to bring down the buildings but a plane crash into a few floors (near the top no less) can accomplish it with no problem and three times with two planes. Apparently plane crashes and jet fuel are so efficient at taking down buildings that in addition to the two towers they demolished they also knocked down the building across the street completely. Didn’t even need jet fuel ignited fire for that one. Three buildings complete global collapse and not even one firecracker. So why the need for vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes?

LastChild, I believe you when you say you'll never understand how damage and fire can destroy buildings. Now, do you have a factual error of mine to point out or discuss? If not, then please take your troubles elsewhere.

 

[dbalsdon]

amount is not "truly staggering' as Mark would like you to believe.

Not just Mark. Pretty much all demolition experts aswell.

 

[The Almond]

This is something I will never understand. How the debunkers claim it would take a vast amount of explosives to bring down the buildings but a plane crash into a few floors (near the top no less) can accomplish it with no problem and three times with two planes. Apparently plane crashes and jet fuel are so efficient at taking down buildings that in addition to the two towers they demolished they also knocked down the building across the street completely. Didn’t even need jet fuel ignited fire for that one. Three buildings complete global collapse and not even one firecracker. So why the need for vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes?

Why is it that it would take a 500 kg weight dropped onto a man's head from a height of 1 meter to kill him, but 0.1 mg of exotoxin from botulism bacteria will do the same?

Your argument assumes that the modes of destruction of the airplane and the explosive charges are the same because the result is the same.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Next error in Mark Robert’s paper.

Unsubstantiated Claim-



Mark:
1. Can you site where the NYPD detectives and the FBI Evidence Response Teams were actively searching for explosive devices or the effects they might have on the debris?

The passage you have cited makes no such claim. "Actively searching" is your own contribution. The passage states that they were aware of the possibility of secondary explosive devices, which is a very different claim from "actively searching." Strike one.

2. Can you source where anyone, including ironworkers were searching for the effects of explosive devices on the debris?

Again, no such claim is made in the passage you've cited. Mark is very careful not to state that anyone was actively searching for explosives. Strike two.

3. If you can’t cite the motivation for the search debris search efforts, why did you include this opinion dressed as facts in your paper?

Complex question and non sequitur rolled into one. Strike three.

Dave

 

[dbalsdon]

Apparently plane crashes and jet fuel are so efficient at taking down buildings that in addition to the two towers they demolished they also knocked down the building across the street completely.

Plane crashes and jet fuel brought down WTC7???? I thought it was the collapse of one of the main towers that caused the damage to WTC7?

So why the need for vast amounts of explosives in addition to the plane crashes?

Isn't that the question truthers have been getting asked for quite a while now?