Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Pookster]

Are you serious?

But it's such a pretty strawman. Where's the love?

 

[SDC]

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

This performance leads me to ask the question: did you pick the name "Zlaya" because it means "wicked, evil, cross, ill-tempered, mean, malicious, ferocious" in Russian? (Feminine, singular, nominative, by the way. Masculine singular nominative = "Zloi.")

Definition from Kenneth Katzner "English-Russian Russian-English Dictionary," 1984.

 

[LashL]

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.

I realize that this not on topic since this thread is for "truthers" to attempt to point out Gravy's factual errors, but this statement strikes me as unusual enough as to require a response, despite being off topic.

Are you suggesting, RedIbis, that no search and rescue attempts, and no recovery operations should have been carried out immediately following the terrorist attacks, due to concerns about air quality?

 

[The Big Dog]

Zlaya:

Wow, I guess after reading some of Zlaya's posts, old Red Ibis has a bit more egg on his face. Yeah, the truthers on this site are well known for their good sense of humor, and their dedication to rigorous recitation of facts and evidence. See Zlaya's spittle soaked post as proof.

Zlaya, you do know that Clunkity Clunk is one of the leading theories of the Truth movement, don't you? Yeah, it is idiotic, but what you gonna do?

Say hi to Kevin Barrett for us!

 

[Gravy]

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

That's probably an overstatement, inspired by the people I was debating: Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. I'll retract it and say "Some people believe..."

Avery: "It's ridiculous. I mean, if you look at every single assassination attempt or terrorist attack against the United States, I mean it always, it almost always, comes back to our own government. It's FRIGHTENING! It's truly frightening! And I don't want to believe these kinds of things, but I mean, the more you look into it, you can only hide for so long."

Bermas: "Terrorism in this country has always had government backing."
(Quotes sourced in Loose Change Creators Speak)

There are plenty of examples of people making broad claims of the extent of U.S.-sponsored terrorism.

NY 911 Truth guy in my "Ground Zeros" video: "Terrorists do exist. But they're not Islamic people. They happen to be people from this country."

Kevin Barrett: "Every single bombing of a mosque or a market in Iraq has been done by false flag terrorism. There are no indigenous Muslim resistance people doing that."

Barrett and others also claim that the 7/7 and Madrid bombings were the work of the U.S. the governments of the countries involved.

Popular author Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed argues that the Sept. 11 hijackers were part of a worldwide terrorism network sponsored primarily by the United States.



Since you're watching videos, Zlaya, why not make a list of the false claims and misrepresentations made by Avery & Bermas, versus those made by me?

 

[Zlaya]

Zlaya:

Wow, I guess after reading some of Zlaya's posts, old Red Ibis has a bit more egg on his face. Yeah, the truthers on this site are well known for their good sense of humor, and their dedication to rigorous recitation of facts and evidence. See Zlaya's spittle soaked post as proof.

Zlaya, you do know that Clunkity Clunk is one of the leading theories of the Truth movement, don't you? Yeah, it is idiotic, but what you gonna do?

Say hi to Kevin Barrett for us!

No one wants to discuss Norman Mineta, Pentagon perimeter cameras, and Gravy's BAUT forum sources?

 

[brasil]

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.

Listen, first of all, my entire post was "responsive" to yours and very little if any of it was "conjecture", unless you're just a robot who only responds to one input signal, namely the answer you are trying to get out of me about "the EPA specifically saying blah blah to GZ workers."

So let me get something out of the way: I am probably never going to find a quote "proving" that the EPA specifically told GZ workers that the air specifically at the WTC was safe unless I turn this into a full-time investigative job and start interviewing people (not happening). Now that's out of the way you can reset your program to accept new input.

Let me turn the question back to you, since you're acting like such an authority on this subject: considering the volume of toxic dust that blanketed lower Manhattan from the destruction of the three buildings, and how far it spread (all the way to Williamsburg), why don't you start by attaching some definitions to the terms "near the WTC" and "at the WTC."

For example, since you're arguing that the EPA didn't lie to the public and workers on September 18th, 2001 when they said "results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe", tell us the consensus, "mainstream" definitions. Does "at the WTC" mean no farther than the boundaries of the original building footprints? Does it mean the boundary of the main debris pile?

I'll make my point once more: the dust and debris from the collapses spread so far beyond the original building footprints and the area technically known as the WTC complex, that "at the WTC" and "near the WTC" are functionally identical for the purposes of a health advisory about air quality in lower Manhattan. Not to mention, the WTC complex is not a closed system - it's an open system subject to winds blowing the dust in any direction. I live on the upper west side of Manhattan, and there were quite a few days when the horrible smell reached all the way up here.

Bottom line: The EPA lied to New Yorkers, the Ground Zero workers and the American people on September 18th, 2001 when they declared the air and water safe "near" the WTC. Even if the EPA or some other authority required that respirators be worn at the site, it does not change the fact that THEY LIED. Respirators are a precaution anyone might take, but making an official announcement is a serious matter.

As I said in my first or second post about this, on the day the announcement was made, when I read about it in the New York Times, I knew immediately it was a lie because I knew what was probably in that dust (mercury, asbestos, heavy metals, PCB's etc.). If I knew it, then the EPA knew it.

Their motive for lying was to avoid mass panic, keep the cleanup operation on schedule, and minimize the inevitable economic catastrophe to business interests in lower Manhattan.

 

[brasil]

now i'm one post away from being able to attach links and images....

 

[The Big Dog]

"No one wants to discuss Norman Mineta, Pentagon perimeter cameras, and Gravy's BAUT forum sources?"

Huh, I thought we were talking about Clunkity Clunk? It is a proven Truth fact that if you can't say a word 110 times in 10-12 seconds, then it could not have happened!

 

[Zlaya]

That's probably an overstatement, inspired by the people I was debating: Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. I'll retract it and say "Some people believe..."

Avery: "It's ridiculous. I mean, if you look at every single assassination attempt or terrorist attack against the United States, I mean it always, it almost always, comes back to our own government. It's FRIGHTENING! It's truly frightening! And I don't want to believe these kinds of things, but I mean, the more you look into it, you can only hide for so long."

Bermas: "Terrorism in this country has always had government backing."
(Quotes sourced in Loose Change Creators Speak)

There are plenty of examples of people making broad claims of the extent of U.S.-sponsored terrorism.

Kevin Barrett: "Every single bombing of a mosque or a market in Iraq has been done by false flag terrorism. There are no indigenous Muslim resistance people doing that."

Barrett and others also claim that the 7/7 and Madrid bombings were the work of the U.S. and other governments.

Popular author Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed argues that the Sept. 11 hijackers were part of a worldwide terrorism network sponsored primarily by the United States.

Since you're watching videos, Zlaya, why not make a list of the false claims and misrepresentations made by Avery & Bermas, versus those made by me?

Oh yea, and i love how loose change kids gave your partner there Debunking 9/11 Debunking, but all he showed at the end was the ****** popular mechanics waste of paper, wicth McCain's insightful comments written in the intro...

Great debate there, very nicely done. The silence in the beginning and the end was especially comfortable.

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

Well actually, would you not have to prove that the respirators failed to protect them, in those who wore them as they were told to, when they were told to, in order to make the statement you have above??

I mean to follow your thought through, then there should have been NO RESCUE EFFORT (they shouldn't have been down there regardless of a respirators) at all, and we would have lost 19 more people on that day.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

Oh yea, and i love how loose change kids gave your partner there Debunking 9/11 Debunking, but all he showed at the end was the ****** popular mechanics waste of paper, wicth McCain's insightful comments written in the intro...

Did they? I thought Debunking 9/11 Debunking was published in 2007. But what's that got to do with their work? Ron Wieck encouraged viewers to watch Loose Change, which is what the debate was about. Clear enough?

Great debate there, very nicely done. The silence in the beginning and the end was especially comfortable.

You're watching the version shot by Korey Rowe, who backed out of participating in the debate after agreeing to. We're obeying the command of "quiet on the set." Should we have been talking over Ron's intro? Try watching the Hardfire version, genius.

 

[pomeroo]

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

You are taking the lead in the Dumbest Conspiracy Liar Contest, but don't rest on your laurels. The competition is stiff (pun intended).

Mark's statement is, of course, completely correct. Many loons believe exactly that--if a sparrow falls anywhere in the world, it was shot down by the U.S. Why do you suppose your deranged brethen constantly prattle about "false flag attacks"?

As usual, the rationalist got it right; the dunce is all wet.

 

[T.A.M.]

As for the rest of this argument, which has bottomed out at ridiculous, I think the original complaint was concerning a particular statement, and the factual error or lack of within it.

If others like brasil (welcome to the forum by the way) wish to then take such, and broaden it into a general discussion on air quality at GZ, and whether it was bad or not, and WHAT ELSE the EPA may or may not have said, then that is a new topic, and one which you will probably get MUCH LESS argument on.

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

Oh yea, and i love how loose change kids gave your partner there Debunking 9/11 Debunking, but all he showed at the end was the ****** popular mechanics waste of paper, wicth McCain's insightful comments written in the intro...

Great debate there, very nicely done. The silence in the beginning and the end was especially comfortable.

You are spectacularly stupid. You can't even trouble yourself to figure out that Griffin's latest travesty hadn't been published at the time of the debate.

UPDATE: Ooops, Mark beat me to it.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am so glad to have that child on ignore now, but it is annoying that I have to read his spoiled child "I'm gonna get you" rants in other people's quotes.

TAM

 

[brasil]

I think the main problem with this thread is that it's too broad. There should be one thread per "Mark Roberts Factual Error" or disputed "fact" or whatever we're going to call it. This will force the issue to stay focused.

 

[AZCat]

To the others, I ask again that this discussion be restricted to errors I've made. It would be nice to have a positive signal-to-noise ratio here.

Isn't the signal-to-noise ratio always positive?



(I realize that it could be zero, but that would require claiming that every post in the thread, including the OP, is all noise and no signal.)

 

[T.A.M.]

Agreed, but as usual, the derails occur, and the thread becomes and ever expanding balloon.

You will likely find little argument from people here on the point of "The air quality at GZ sucked, and more should have been done to keep people around there safe."

TAM

 

[JimBenArm]

I am so glad to have that child on ignore now, but it is annoying that I have to read his spoiled child "I'm gonna get you" rants in other people's quotes.

TAM

You do know that's the only reason we quote him, don't you? Just to annoy you.