Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[RedIbis]

brasil,
Welcome to the forum. I sense the mods are in the rushes and will (as I believe they should, keeping this the forum what it is) pull any off-topic exchanges. So I'll make this brief and within the topic of the OP.

When you point out Gravy's errors on this thread or any other, be very specific and able to support with solid sourcing. The errors are there, but most of what Gravy does is conjecture, and provide a semi plausible theory (the jet fuel fireball, for example) and personal appeal (nearly the entire Escape Artist paper). He has admitted that his work should not be considered scientific, academic, nor open to peer review.

When you inevitably point out errors and deceptive language, you will begin to be ignored by Gravy and then his supporters. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it goes around here.

That said, you can learn a lot on this excellent forum and throughout jref. Those of us who criticize the official story can stick around a bit by maintaining a sense of humor, real civility, respect for the rules and the sharpest possible focus on evidence, hard, physical evidence.

 

[brasil]

Reposted in case Brasil missed it ...



(emphasis added)

Welcome to the forum. I snipped much of your post because it wasn't responsive to my post. Please quote where the EPA specifically told Ground Zero workers that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. I think my request is quite simple to respond to. Either there is such a quote, or there isn't. I would be willing to accept something along the lines of "the workers no longer have to use their protective breathing gear" or such. "Near the WTC" isn't going to cut it. I want "at the WTC".

Thanks.

I'm not saying that such a quote doesn't exist (and besides, we would only be talking about a web-discoverable quote, whose absence would certainly not mean the statement was never made), however on this point we may have to agree to disagree.

As I stated earlier, I live in NYC and experienced these public statements in the news as they happened, and reacted to them in much the way everyone did, and that includes "ground zero workers" - these people read the newspapers and watched the news just like everyone else, and I would think would have an even greater interest in the EPA statement than the average person.

Here's why that EPA statement reaching a ground zero worker through the news could easily be interpreted, and was interpreted, to mean "at the WTC." Everyone has seen the pictures of the dust all over lower Manhattan. There is video showing the dust blowing all the way to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. It was the same dust 10 and 20 blocks away as it was at the WTC site. If you were here, you would already know that the debris and dust covered a much larger area than what is technically labeled "the WTC site." If the EPA said it was safe "near the WTC" that was the same as saying it was safe "at the WTC site," because the dust we now know to be highly toxic was everywhere.

What I'm trying explain is that I was here experiencing this in real-time, and I assure you that everyone interpreted that EPA statement as also applying to the ground zero workers. It's what everyone "on the street" was talking about, and that statement was designed to calm NYC residents' fears, and keep the workers from walking off the job.

And I don't mean to split hairs semantically with you, but what the statement actually says is that their monitoring equipment was "near the WTC." And as I've said, the conditions "near the WTC" and "at the WTC" were so similar as to make the distinction irrelevant. And again, a nationally publicized, official EPA announcement is the same as "telling the ground zero workers."

 

[RedIbis]

And as I've said, the conditions "near the WTC" and "at the WTC" were so similar as to make the distinction irrelevant. And again, a nationally publicized, official EPA announcement is the same as "telling the ground zero workers."

You are about to find out that such minor, inconsequential distinctions is the foundation of what is known around here as debunking.

 

[Brainache]

So why is it only the GZ workers who are now sick? What about all the people who lived and worked near the WTC, shouldn't they all be sick as well if the conditions near GZ were the same as conditions at GZ?

ETA: I guess my argument here is what RedIbis would call inconsequential. Oh well, it seems valid to me.

 

[Gravy]

Here's why that EPA statement reaching a ground zero worker through the news could easily be interpreted, and was interpreted, to mean "at the WTC."

Nonsense. Why are you ignoring the fact that the GZ workers had specific instructions about wearing personal protective equipment?

And specifically how do you dispute these findings?

Office of Inspector General Evaluation Report No. 2003-P-00012

EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement, pp. 100-101

EPA Actions to Encourage Respirator Use

As demonstrated by a fact sheet prepared on September 11, 2001, EPA’s emergency response officials immediately recognized the need for and recommended the use of air purifying respirators at Ground Zero (a copy of this document is available on our OIG web site). EPA officials told us this fact sheet was provided to a FEMA official, but was not issued. We contacted a FEMA representative who told us that the flyer was not issued because it was decided that New York City should handle worker protection issues.

EPA also provided respirators for workers at the site. According to a May 1, 2002, letter from EPA’s Region 2 Administrator to Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), EPA had distributed 22,100 air purifying respirators and 30,500 sets of P100 particulate cartridges to New York City by September 22, 2001. Additionally, 600 respirators (MSA and 3m brand) and 2,000 cartridges (GME-P100) were provided to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New York State Department of Health. The bulk of EPA-procured equipment was transported from EPA’s Edison facility by the New York National Guard to the New York City Office of Emergency Management for distribution to response workers.

As the rescue phase progressed, EPA emergency response officials told us they were concerned about the lack of respirator use at Ground Zero and outlined these concerns in a letter to NYCDOH dated October 5, 2001. This letter outlined the threat of potential exposure of workers to hazardous substances. The letter noted that EPA “... has recommended, and continues to recommend, that workers utilize personal protective equipment and the personal wash stations to prevent the spread of asbestos and other hazardous substances from the WTC to their homes, cars, public transportation, food service locations, etc.” The letter stated that EPA had observed very inconsistent compliance with its recommendations, but did not have the authority to enforce compliance with non-EPA/United States Coast Guard employees. The letter concluded by recommending that the Incident Commander adopt and enforce a site-wide Health and Safety Plan. A copy of the letter is in Appendix P.

"White House meddled with 9-11 reports"

Early U.S. EPA statements made after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City reassuring the public that the air outside the “Ground Zero” area was “safe” to breathe were not substantiated by the data available at the time, according to a report by EPA’s Inspector General (IG), the agency’s watchdog arm. Instead, the White House Council on Environmental Quality convinced EPA “to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones” in its press releases, the report finds. In effect, EPA’s overriding message was that there was no significant threat to human health, even though the agency lacked monitoring data for several contaminants, particularly PCBs, particulate matter, dioxin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Because of the lack of supporting data—including health-based benchmarks for short-term and acute exposures to many of the contaminants of concern, research data on synergistic effects, and reliable information on the extent of the public’s exposure to these pollutants—the IG concludes that “the answer to whether the outdoor air around the World Trade Center was safe to breathe may not be settled for years to come.” http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2003/sep/science/kc_911air.html

 

[RedIbis]

So why is it only the GZ workers who are now sick? What about all the people who lived and worked near the WTC, shouldn't they all be sick as well if the conditions near GZ were the same as conditions at GZ?

ETA: I guess my argument here is what RedIbis would call inconsequential. Oh well, it seems valid to me.

And what if people who returned to lower Manhattan are suffering respiratory problems? Will you simply rationalize it, or will you ask why the EPA deemed the air safe, when it obviously wasn't?

 

[The Big Dog]

"That said, you can learn a lot on this excellent forum and throughout jref. Those of us who criticize the official story can stick around a bit by maintaining a sense of humor, real civility, respect for the rules and the sharpest possible focus on evidence, hard, physical evidence."

People on the internet often talk about needing a new keyboard because something they read was so outlandish, or so funny that they spit their beverage on it. I thought that was a myth, or just an expression.

Until today.

RedIbis, you owe me a new keyboard

 

[RedIbis]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

 

[RedIbis]

"That said, you can learn a lot on this excellent forum and throughout jref. Those of us who criticize the official story can stick around a bit by maintaining a sense of humor, real civility, respect for the rules and the sharpest possible focus on evidence, hard, physical evidence."

People on the internet often talk about needing a new keyboard because something they read was so outlandish, or so funny that they spit their beverage on it. I thought that was a myth, or just an expression.

Until today.

RedIbis, you owe me a new keyboard

I'm sure there must be some smilie or gif that you can post to articulate your thoughts.

 

[brasil]

So why is it only the GZ workers who are now sick? What about all the people who lived and worked near the WTC, shouldn't they all be sick as well if the conditions near GZ were the same as conditions at GZ?

ETA: I guess my argument here is what RedIbis would call inconsequential. Oh well, it seems valid to me.

Since I jumped on this train late, could Mark or someone direct me to where his statements about this WTC air safety topic are, so I can see what I'm either agreeing or disagreeing with?

Brainache: It is not "only the GZ workers who are now sick." Lots of residents of lower Manhattan became sick, which is my whole reason for citing the September 18th, 2001 EPA statement. I think there is probably some nuance to this debate. Conflicting, contradictory information was put out there - we have the EPA announcing to the public that the air is safe, we have anyone with any sense telling GZ workers to wear respirators (seriously, if i was working down there I personally would not need to be told to wear protective gear, but that's just me).

see this personal injury lawyer's site (yes, not the best source but he has references): newyorkcity.injuryboard.com/world-trade-center-illness/

"Children Exposed to Toxic Dust Following 9/11 Have Developed Respiratory Symptoms"

 

[Brainache]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

So the huge piles of smoking rubble should have just been left to sit there indefinitely?

 

[Brainache]

Since I jumped on this train late, could Mark or someone direct me to where his statements about this WTC air safety topic are, so I can see what I'm either agreeing or disagreeing with?

Brainache: It is not "only the GZ workers who are now sick." Lots of residents of lower Manhattan became sick, which is my whole reason for citing the September 18th, 2001 EPA statement. I think there is probably some nuance to this debate. Conflicting, contradictory information was put out there - we have the EPA announcing to the public that the air is safe, we have anyone with any sense telling GZ workers to wear respirators (seriously, if i was working down there I personally would not need to be told to wear protective gear, but that's just me).

see this personal injury lawyer's site (yes, not the best source but he has references): newyorkcity.injuryboard.com/world-trade-center-illness/

"Children Exposed to Toxic Dust Following 9/11 Have Developed Respiratory Symptoms"

OK thanks, I was unaware of this. I had only ever heard about the actual GZ workers.

 

[Gravy]

Since I jumped on this train late, could Mark or someone direct me to where his statements about this WTC air safety topic are, so I can see what I'm either agreeing or disagreeing with?

I was thinking that you didn't understand the responses to this topic, but it turns out that you haven't even read them. I don't know which of these options troubles me more.

Here's the statement that the conspiracists are responding to. It's on page 9 of this thread. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3232185&postcount=325

 

[pomeroo]

And what if people who returned to lower Manhattan are suffering respiratory problems? Will you simply rationalize it, or will you ask why the EPA deemed the air safe, when it obviously wasn't?

Concerns over the air quality at Ground Zero and in downtown Manhattan are reality-based. You're a conspiracy liar. How does this concern you?

 

[Slayhamlet]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

Are you serious?

 

[Pookster]

... And I don't mean to split hairs semantically with you, but what the statement actually says is that their monitoring equipment was "near the WTC." And as I've said, the conditions "near the WTC" and "at the WTC" were so similar as to make the distinction irrelevant.

I've again snipped most of the non-responsive part of your post. Most of it was just your conjecture anyways, as is what I didn't snip. Conjecture isn't gonna cut it. If you can't provide a quote or reference to where the EPA specifically told Ground Zero workers that the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe, then you have no evidence. "Near" is not "at". You can try to equate them all you want, but they're still two different things. An employee of mine being "near" the office when she's supposed to be "at" the office will get her in trouble.

 

[Pookster]

You are about to find out that such minor, inconsequential distinctions is the foundation of what is known around here as debunking.

Inconsequential? Too funny. It's not only known as debunking, it's also known as understanding that words have meaning. And, sorry, you don't get to change those meanings at your leisure just so you can formulate your own personal version of the truth.

 

[Gravy]

Here's an equivalent argument:

Me: It was wild when those airliners hit St. Paul's Chapel.

Sane Person: What are you talking about? The airliners hit the Twin Towers.

Me: Look, it says right here "Historic St. Paul's Chapel survived unscathed when the nearby Twin Towers were hit by airliners and collapsed."

SP: Yeah? It says "nearby," not "into."

Me: You're splitting hairs. "Nearby" encompasses "into."

SP: That's insane. The article says right here that St. Paul's Chapel was NOT damaged.

Me: It's amazing that an old church could hold up so well to impacts like that.

SP: I'm outta here.

Me: Splitter!

 

[Pookster]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

Gravy hasn't missed the point. You're creating a strawman. Your being disappointed that Gravy didn't notice it is irrelevant to what was actually being discussed. It's a pretty strawman though. You seem to take great care in building it. You can see the obvious love and care that went into it. You're certainly devoted to your craft. There now, does that help soothe your disappointment?

 

[Zlaya]

You are about to find out that such minor, inconsequential distinctions is the foundation of what is known around here as debunking.

AMEN you said it.

"CLUNKITY CLUNK!" Right Gravy?

By the way, Mark you look absolutely like a fool in this one:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=142975074341498508&hl=en

I quote you:

"there is a LARGE thread of people in the conspiracy movement, truth movement they call themselves, who believe that all terrorist acts are really commited by the United States."

First sentence out of your mouth was a falacy. Just wait 'till i put together a "Screw Mark's Gravy" video and a 'blogger' blog - a collection of text boxes scattered all over the place, pointing out your every little stupid thing you've said in this video.

And i'll use BAUT forum as the source for my statements! You know, just like you did with your crap?

HAHA!

Just search google, it'll come out soon