Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Gravy]

Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

He claims that, and it's a factual error. So there, back on topic. Sorry!

I did? Feel free to find that quote of mine and start a new topic about it. Happy searching.

 

[Zlaya]

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:

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.

• 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]:

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,

• 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,

• In this post Rodriguez wrote,

• In this post he wrote,

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:

[qimg]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/gravytour.jpg[/qimg]

• 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.

I think willie is just being sarcastic with you.

 

[Zlaya]

I did? Feel free to find that quote of mine and start a new topic about it. Happy searching.

Ok. I'm talking about this piece of work: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Did you write the following:

As for the question, "Where are all those Pentagon video cameras?" one answer is that the Pentagon primarily uses live security – human beings – for its perimeter security. (Since 9/11 more cameras may have been installed. I don’t have information on that.) Here's a post on the BAUT forum from a Pentagon employee who was there on 9/11. http://tinyurl.com/gxvvd An excerpt: "Why isn't there more video? Without telling too much of what I know of Pentagon security, you would be surprised how few cameras there are outside the building. Humans actively patrolling a building's perimeter are a tad more effective than dozens of monitors which may or may not be watched at any given moment."

Are you aware that you're dismissing me, based on something someone wrote on some forum? Wait, i do see the irony...

 

[Gravy]

Ok. I'm talking about this piece of work: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

Did you write the following:

Are you aware that you're dismissing me, based on something someone wrote on some forum? Wait, i do see the irony...

Sorry, can you point out where I said this

Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

He claims that, and it's a factual error. So there, back on topic. Sorry!

Or where I made a factual error?

 

[chillzero]

People, get it back on topic please, or the thread will go to moderated status. Please try not to rise to the bait of anyone that ignores the topic and chooses instead to post personalised jibes at others.

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

 

[Dave Rogers]

Fair question. I would state because the removal of the support of one floor was needed for global collapse to ensue, it wouldn't take staggering amounts of explosives, only a small amount placed in strategic places without the conditions Mark places on his non-expert analysis.

How many times do you plan to admit you're wrong before you admit you've admitted you're wrong?

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Wait, you debunked Mineta's testimony? You debunked the fact that a plane hit the pentagon and no one did anything?

**** man, i should quit right now...

Would you mind answering my question instead of going off on tangents: Don't you think the "big picture" is made up of those individually-debunked elements ?

 

[Pookster]

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,

<snip conjecture>

Your posts to me were not responsive. I asked for a quote or reference where EPA officials specifically told the Ground Zero workers that the air there was safe to breathe. You've provided no such thing in a number of posts now. I'll accept your concession that you're not likely to find such either. I still contend that none exists. Your conjecture is not an acceptable replacement for what I asked for. Conjecture is not evidence. Sorry. Again, "near the WTC" is not "at the WTC". You're either "at the WTC", or you're not. I know how inconvenient this can be for the Truth Movement, but words mean things.

As to turning the question back on me, that's off topic for this thread. Feel free to start a new thread to discuss such, if you desire. If I feel inclined, I may decide to participate in your new thread.

 

[Belz...]

I think all governments, some more then others, lie to their people.

Just because they lie, doesn't mean they kill.

It gets better: just because they lie, doesn't mean they always lie.

 

[Belz...]

He is not missing the point. He is missing the point on purpose, so that he can pretend to know all about debunking the nut case twoofers

Well at least you admit it.

Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

Since when is that a conspiracy theory ? I don't think that word means what you think.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Ladies and Gentlemen the next error....

The infamous “Pull” error can be found in Mark's WTC7

Mark's claim:

Is "Pull" used by demolitions pros to mean "demolish with explosives?"
No.

I won’t rehash the comment from Silverstein that will follow later.

In this case Mark asks if demolition pros (plural) use the term ‘pull’ to mean “demolish with explosives”. He then cites 3 experts to support the answer of no. Three doesn’t seem to be a proper sample to represent demolition pros,
which I assume Mark means all pros but I won’t focus on that fallacy.
Lets examine other statements in the demolition industry and their use
of the term pull within the context of demolishing a building with
explosives:


"In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris." -ImplosionWorld.com

"Jack [Loizeaux] brought a basic knowledge of construction,
engineering, and physics to his new science of implosion. More
important, though, he brought the fascination and conviction of a true
believer. Long before anyone else, he had faith in the power of
explosives to help gravity do what it wants to do anyway: pull things
down." -University of Georgia

On Sunday, June 10, 2001, the City of Des Moines subcontracted the
implosion of the Younkers Warehouse Building to Controlled Demolition
Incorporated (CDI) from Des Moines and Metro Wrecking and Excavating,
Inc. from Phoenix, Maryland. CDI drilled over 500 holes in the
supporting columns in the building and placed approximately 250 pounds
of explosives. The explosives were detonated with a delay pattern that
started in the southeast corner of the building and proceeded toward the
northwest corner in a matter of seconds. This delay sequence allowed the
explosive charges to detonate fractions of seconds apart; reducing the
noise and vibrations to approximately 25 percent of the allowable levels
before damage would occur to surrounding buildings. This delay allowed
CDI to control the direction that the building would fall and resulted
in the illusion that the building melted. CDI planned the implosion to
pull the building to the southeast and away from the intersection of SW
9th and Mulberry Streets. The implosion was very successful. -Front
Line/Des Moines, IA

"Not all demolition blast(s) are implosions. The industry often refers
to them as implosions because it is a popular expression. A true
implosion is a case when a structure has been caused to fall inwards on
itself. Smokestacks, towers, bridges and most buildings are not
imploded. They are simply knocked over.
Implosion is used when there is limited area on all sides of a
structure making it impossible to lay them out.
The principles used on an implosion are basically the same whether it
is a true implosion, or if the structure is simply going to be laid out.
The principle tool in an implosion is gravity. The explosives are used
to weaken and cause the supporting members of the structure to fail,
thus allowing gravity to pull the structure down or over." -Dykon
Blasting Corp.

"Stacey Loizeaux, twenty-six years old, has worked for Controlled
Demolition, an international explosives engineering firm, since the age
of fifteen. She learned the fine art of demolition from her father, Mark
Loizeaux, and her uncle, Doug Loizeaux—president and vice-president of
the company.
NOVA: A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not
really the case, is it?
Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother
back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what
we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the
building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on
top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support
columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one
direction or another, or straight down.
SL: Well, you just pull it away,
you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just
let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull
itself completely away from the building. It can be done.
NOVA: What do you look for in an explosive?
SL: Velocity. You have two different types of explosives. You have low
order and high order. A low order explosive is like what they used when
they bombed the Oklahoma City building—that's ANFO, ammonium nitrate
and fuel oil. It's a very slow, heaving explosion. It tends to push more
than it does shatter. The explosive we look for is a shattering
explosive. What we want to do is instantaneously remove the integrity of
the columns or whatever we're working on. That's what we look for in
nitroglycerin or NG-based dynamite. With a steel building, we use
something called a linear shaped charge. It's the same explosive they
use to sever the fuel tank off the Space Shuttle, when they launch.
NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down
the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there
for that?
SL: My father and my uncle went out.
NOVA: Do you get a thrill watching a building fall?
SL: Oh sure. I mean you really don't ever lose it. Your perspective
changes. When I first started traveling with my Dad at fifteen, sixteen
years old, I used to be awestruck. But you sort of go from that
awestruck feeling to where you understand how the structure is coming
down and you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or
waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull
forward. So it does change, but it's always a rush." -NOVA/PBS (1997)

Demolition of Dangerous Building
"City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that
he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building,
however, the owner has demonstrated no desire to cooperate.
2. THAT the owners are hereby ordered to pull down the building and
remove the resulting debris and the discarded materials from the site
within 14 days of the date from a copy of this Resolution being served
pursuant to Section 324A of the Vancouver Charter.
3. THAT in the event that the owners do not comply with the order set
forth in the preceding paragraph, the City Building Inspector is hereby
ordered and authorized to pull down the building and remove the resulting debris and discarded material from the site at the cost of the owners and dispose of it by selling to the demolition contractor any
material he may agree to purchase, and delivering the rest to a disposal
site." - Vancouver City Council (01/09/96)

"The preparation of the structure for implosion could have been
approached a number of ways...it was decided that CDI [Controlled
Demolition, Inc.] could effectively minimize the amount of linear shaped
charge explosives to be used in the structure. By torch-cutting splice
plates on selected upper columns/floors, and utilizing approximately
3,000 feet of steel-core cable on alternate upper floors to help
“pull” the northern and eastern walls away from the fiber optics
cables..." -Controlled Demolition, Inc. (01/23/05)

"Phase 1 continued to fall, helping to pull Phase 2 in. Phase 2 was
detonated several seconds later and collapsed and fell the same as Phase
1." -Controlled Demolition, Inc. (01/23/05)

It appears that the term “pull” is used to designate bringing a building down with explosives and using cables to bring down a building.

So in this case, Mark makes another factual error when trying to state that "pull" is not used to demolish a building with explosives.

 

[Lurker]

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.

Um, actually, that would not be true. As someone who has had some college education in the area of gas dispersion, we would expect the concentration of pollutants to be highest at the source, the WTC GZ site. As one moves away from that area, the concentration of pollutants diminishes depending on a variety of factors such as wind speed, turbulence, temperature, etc.

It comes as no surprise to me that strong warnings may be issued and PPE equipment required at GZ but a couple hundred yards away they may have felt there was enough dissipation to allow for a different response. Also, when working in the rubble pile it is quite possible that the harmful pollutants may have been rather heavy and thus not prone to drifting very far before settling back to ground. The act of sifting through rubble will stir some of those pollutants up and thus a PPE is required yet heavy enough to not be a hazard to those outside of GZ.

Lurker

 

[RedIbis]

Swing, as usual, good work. You surely provide some interesting examples. I'm curious why debunking arguments, in this instance, rely on the idea that "pull it" is not an industry term. Even though you show many examples where it is used that way, Silverstein is not an industry expert. At best, his use of the phrase has to be taken as informal, from the perspective of an outsider. But with his long career in real estate, I'm sure he's been part of discussions about demolitions.

All I'm trying to point out here is that the so called debunk of "pull it" is deeply flawed since we can't apply the same rationale for Silverstein's use of the phrase, as we would someone within the demolition community.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Swing, as usual, good work. You surely provide some interesting examples. I'm curious why debunking arguments, in this instance, rely on the idea that "pull it" is not an industry term. Even though you show many examples where it is used that way, Silverstein is not an industry expert. At best, his use of the phrase has to be taken as informal, from the perspective of an outsider. But with his long career in real estate, I'm sure he's been part of discussions about demolitions.

All I'm trying to point out here is that the so called debunk of "pull it" is deeply flawed since we can't apply the same rationale for Silverstein's use of the phrase, as we would someone within the demolition community.

Thanks Red. What is interesting is that Mark uses the same method I did when trying trying to answer the question: Is "Pull" used to mean "Withdraw firefighters from danger?"

I suspect that most debunkers will accept Mark's method with regards to removing firefighters from danger but will of course ignore my method for the meaning of "pull" within the demolition industry. I hope this doesn't turn out to be that way, but the hypocrisy of many debunkers leads me to believe that they will.

 

[TimB1]

Mark's claim:


I won’t rehash the comment from Silverstein that will follow later.

In this case Mark asks if demolition pros (plural) use the term ‘pull’ to mean “demolish with explosives”. He then cites 3 experts to support the answer of no. Three doesn’t seem to be a proper sample to represent demolition pros,
which I assume Mark means all pros but I won’t focus on that fallacy.
Lets examine other statements in the demolition industry and their use
of the term pull within the context of demolishing a building with
explosives:
...

In every single instance in which the word 'pull' is used in your examples, it is followed by an adverb or adverbial phrase to make what is known to grammaticians as a 'phrasal verb' or a 'particle verb'. e.g. 'pull down', 'pull in', 'pull forward', 'pull away', 'pull to the southeast'. Are we to take it that you couldn't come up with an instance from the demolition industry of someone saying (as you claim that Silverstein meant), 'We pulled the building'? (No adverb). Because if you had, you'd definitely have posted it here, right?

 

[DavidJames]

Thanks Red. What is interesting is that Mark uses the same method I did when trying trying to answer the question: Is "Pull" used to mean "Withdraw firefighters from danger?"

I suspect that most debunkers will accept Mark's method with regards to removing firefighters from danger but will of course ignore my method for the meaning of "pull" within the demolition industry. I hope this doesn't turn out to be that way, but the hypocrisy of many debunkers leads me to believe that they will.

When you went to bed last night knowing the U.S. govt was complicit in the murder of 3000 people and knowing that your only action to address this was to nit pick semantics in a tour guides writings, did you have good dreams?

 

[HyJinX]

Thanks Red. What is interesting is that Mark uses the same method I did when trying trying to answer the question: Is "Pull" used to mean "Withdraw firefighters from danger?"

I suspect that most debunkers will accept Mark's method with regards to removing firefighters from danger but will of course ignore my method for the meaning of "pull" within the demolition industry. I hope this doesn't turn out to be that way, but the hypocrisy of many debunkers leads me to believe that they will.

Swing...did Larry have the building demolished or not? That's the only pertinent question. Regardless of what phrases or words your wish to carp on about...do you think he did it or not?

 

[Lurker]

When you went to bed last night knowing the U.S. govt was complicit in the murder of 3000 people and knowing that your only action to address this was to nit pick semantics in a tour guides writings, did you have good dreams?

If Gravy falls, so too will his JREF minions and then the world will rebel against the govt and install Dylan Avery as President. Only the evil JREF stands in the way of truth.

 

[chillzero]

I often wonder if Silverstein meant "pull out" - to recall the men to safety.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lets examine other statements in the demolition industry and their use
of the term pull within the context of demolishing a building with
explosives:

Your fallacy here is equating "use of the term pull within the context of demolishing a building with explosives" with use of the term pull to mean demolishing a building with explosives. Let's look at your examples.


(1) "a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures "

Ambiguous at best, in that the word "pull" could either be used as a synonym for "demolish" or in its literal sense of "cause to move by applying a tractive force".

(2) "he had faith in the power of
explosives to help gravity do what it wants to do anyway: pull things
down."

Clearly the word "pull" here does not mean "demolish with explosives", as this would imply that gravity is setting off the explosives.

(3) "CDI planned the implosion to pull the building to the southeast"

Same comment as (1).

(4) "thus allowing gravity to pull the structure down"

Same comment as (2).

(5-7) "It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
SL: Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done."

Again, the use of the word "pull" to mean "pull". Nobody is disputing that demolition professionals use the word "pull", this is a discussion on the meaning of that word. In none of these examples does it make sense for it to mean "demolish with explosives".

(8) "counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward. "

Again, the word "pull" clearly is not intended to mean "demolish with explosives" here, as the quote would then make no sense.

(9-11) "City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building, however, the owner has demonstrated no desire to cooperate.
2. THAT the owners are hereby ordered to pull down the building and
remove the resulting debris and the discarded materials from the site
within 14 days of the date from a copy of this Resolution being served
pursuant to Section 324A of the Vancouver Charter.
3. THAT in the event that the owners do not comply with the order set
forth in the preceding paragraph, the City Building Inspector is hereby
ordered and authorized to pull down the building and remove the resulting debris and discarded material from the site at the cost of the owners and dispose of it by selling to the demolition contractor any
material he may agree to purchase, and delivering the rest to a disposal
site." - Vancouver City Council (01/09/96)

No mention of explosives anywhere in this passage; irrelevant.

(12) "utilizing approximately 3,000 feet of steel-core cable on alternate upper floors to help “pull” the northern and eastern walls away from the fiber optics cables..."

Again, using the word "pull" to mean "demolish with explosives" makes no sense here, as it's something cables are doing.

(13) "Phase 1 continued to fall, helping to pull Phase 2 in."

Again, "pull" to mean "pull", unless it's suggested that one part of the building set off charges in the other part.

So in this case, Mark makes another factual error when trying to state that "pull" is not used to demolish a building with explosives.

This one is a bit of a grey area. You've provided a total of two quotes which could be interpreted to mean that the term "pull" is used to mean "demolish with explosives", or alternatively could be interpreted just to mean "cause to move by applying a tractive force", ie. the common meaning. Therefore, the truth movement's commonly repeated claim that "pull" means "demolish with explosives" is not proven by any of these quotes, but neither is Mark's claim that it is not used in that sense. All we have, therefore, is the citation of three experts to support Mark's claim. On balance, therefore, unless you can find dissenting experts or unambiguous quotes, this one goes to Mark.

On the subsidiary question of whether "pull it" means "remove the firefighters from danger", I agree that it seems an extremely unusual usage; I would have expected something like "pull them", or "pull them out", or closest to the original, "pull it out" (meaning the group of firemen). Therefore, since neither interpretation of the quote seems to me to make sense, the only thing I have to go on is what Silverstein said he meant, and the related fact that I don't believe in the Freudian slip confession model - especially not in a prerecorded interview.

Dave