Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[JimBenArm]

You wouldn't be captain of your local DODGE ball team would you?

You know, jokes are funnier when they actually make sense.

Pointing out how you didn't make any sense isn't a dodge. Refusing to answer, or changing the subject is a dodge.

That's just showing your lack of intellect and inability to do humor.

Please, try again. This time using your brain.

 

[Swing Dangler]

It depends on whether chief Nigro believed he was consulting the building owner or merely informing him of the situation. That Silverstein expressed the view that the safety of the firefighters was paramount and the building was secondary doesn't in any way mean that had he said the opposite, chief Nigro would have changed his decision on the day. You really do have problems with comprehension, don't you swingy?

Reading comprehension?? LOL. I will define "consult" for you:
1. to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from
2. to refer to for information
3. to have regard for (a person's interest, convenience, etc.) in making plans
4. to give professional or expert advice; serve as consultant
5. To take into account; consider
6. To exchange views; confer

Who is wrong Dave? Larry Silverstein on two occasions or Chief Nigro in a letter to a tour guide?

It is very clear from Larry's statements that Chief Nigro did consult with Larry on his building. Why the Chief would state otherwise is of course speculation.
But you can't have both, Dave.

 

[Swing Dangler]

You know, jokes are funnier when they actually make sense.

Pointing out how you didn't make any sense isn't a dodge. Refusing to answer, or changing the subject is a dodge.

That's just showing your lack of intellect and inability to do humor.

Please, try again. This time using your brain.

Sorry Jimben, but I'm not the one using contradictory statements to prove a point. You are.

 

[JimBenArm]

Sorry Jimben, but I'm not the one using contradictory statements to prove a point. You are.

Let's see, first you say I'm dodging. Now I'm being contradictory?
Man, life is easy when you can redefine terms to mean whatever you want, isn't it?
Maybe you should invest in a dictionary so you can actually find out what these terms mean.
Meanwhile, yet again, Yay, me!^TM

 

[SDC]

Reading comprehension?? LOL. I will define "consult" for you:
1. to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from
2. to refer to for information
3. to have regard for (a person's interest, convenience, etc.) in making plans
4. to give professional or expert advice; serve as consultant
5. To take into account; consider
6. To exchange views; confer

Who is wrong Dave? Larry Silverstein on two occasions or Chief Nigro in a letter to a tour guide?

It is very clear from Larry's statements that Chief Nigro did consult with Larry on his building. Why the Chief would state otherwise is of course speculation.
But you can't have both, Dave.

I'm not certain, but didn't Chief Nigro speak with Ref, not Gravy? Not that the "tour guide" comment is anything but a red ib... uh, herring.

You are suggesting that "consult" means really that Nigro had to take Silverstein's direction in some way. This is the bunk. Dave is right.

Actually, your whole effort is one big attempt to squeeze blood out of turnips -- by which I mean that you are parsing every little word and phrase, in isolation, to try to turn the meaning in a direction you favor. Do you think you are making any converts? I don't.

 

[johnny karate]

Without getting into a debate over semantics regarding how "consulting" and "expressing an opinion" are different, what does any of this have to do with Nigro's explanation of what happened?

He clearly states that WTC7 collapsed because of damage and fire.

Nowhere does he state or imply that he, or anyone else in the FDNY, had a hand in demolishing WTC7, as you have been implying they might have.

Your attempt to derail the discussion based on semantic debate over who actually issued the order is lame, transparent, and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

WTC7 collapsed due to damage and fire. The Fire Chief who was on the scene corroborates this fact. So, either he's wrong or you are.

Which is it?

 

[The Big Dog]

Swing:

You are really bad at this aren't you? You intentionally bold a clause, and ignore the key to understanding what you are being told. Posts like your's are the reason why the Twooth Movement is where it is today.

Here, let me bold the key to understanding the word "consult":

“For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.”

You see, Swing? He made the decision. So, try to stop parsing out words, you are really, really bad at it.

 

[Belz...]

One, we are only getting 1/2 of the conversation.
I linked below to an article about the decision to demolish a building while it was on fire due to the structurally unsound nature of the building. The fire official did not want to risk the lives of the firefighters any longer.

If it was structurally unsound, why would anyone need to demolish it secretly ?

Say, why don't YOU answer my questions:

Do you think that the firefighters are "in on" this conspiracy ?

If not, how do you reconcile this with the "pull it" argument ? Specifically, why would Silverstein tell the firefighter chief to "pull it" if he wasn't in on it ?

 

[uk_dave]

Reading comprehension?? LOL. I will define "consult" for you:
1. to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from
2. to refer to for information
3. to have regard for (a person's interest, convenience, etc.) in making plans
4. to give professional or expert advice; serve as consultant
5. To take into account; consider
6. To exchange views; confer

Who is wrong Dave? Larry Silverstein on two occasions or Chief Nigro in a letter to a tour guide?

It is very clear from Larry's statements that Chief Nigro did consult with Larry on his building. Why the Chief would state otherwise is of course speculation.
But you can't have both, Dave.

WTF?

Chief Nigro says he didn't consult with Silverstein and Silverstein says he expressed a view with regard to the need to preserve life over the need to preserve the building. NO ONE says Nigro consulted Silverstein.

Someone here has lost the plot, and it aint me.

 

[RedIbis]

That was the verdict of FEMA. NIST spent rather longer on this, though, and they said otherwise:

Ok, so NIST puts the latest of any firefighter activity in the building, three hours before collapse.

So to backtrack, what was Silverstein talking about then?

 

[DGM]

Ok, so NIST puts the latest of any firefighter activity in the building, three hours before collapse.

So to backtrack, what was Silverstein talking about then?

I always took it as Silverstein just agreeing with the FDNY. Sort of like giving his blessing to a decision that's already been made.

 

[RedIbis]

I always took it as Silverstein just agreeing with the FDNY. Sort of like giving his blessing to a decision that's already been made.

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?

 

[GStan]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?

They didn't need it. They got it. But they certainly didn't need it.

 

[DGM]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?

They didn't.
Have you ever looked for reassurance the what you did was the right thing. The FDNY decided to abandon all hope of saving WTC7 maybe they just wanted to hear the owner say it's OK. These are real people you know.

 

[johnny karate]

RedIbis, would you care to address the issue of firefighter testimony (specifically Fire Chief Nigro) that directly contradicts the claim of WTC7 being a controlled demolition?

Or are you more content to quibble over insignificant details, as your compatriot Swing Dangler seems to be?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?

Well they would not, for two reasons: 1. they did not need his blessing: 2. there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they talked to Silverstein at 5:00.

Where did you get that time?

 

[beachnut]

Why would they need Silverstein's blessing to pull the firefighters at 5pm when they had already pulled the operations three hours earlier?

Remind me what this mean in respect to the OP and 9/11 in general? Forget it, I just figured out that "pull it" is a classic pit fall for the so called "truth movement". I see any one in 9/11 truth who uses this as a "smoking gun" or that it has anything to do with 9/11 conspiracies, as ignorant on 9/11 and not able to comprehend reality or make rational decisions or conclusions on 9/11 topic.

Trying to figure out when and how a statement made well after 9/11 fits with made up lies about 9/11 is cute when people argue fruitlessly on the 9/11 truth side to come up with some clue. Real dumb stuff comes from 9/11 truth; some is interesting to discuss, some is useful to expose those too challenged to understand 9/11.

If you have no clue on this topic, please take time to think about perceptions after events, and how you are now trying to do nothing to help understand that day. Problem solution choice time has passed, you seem to be on the wrong train and I have missed mine.

 

[Gravy]

*******

Error of Commission. Deliberately altering 2002 quote to implicate Silverstein.

See my note above: "In the May presentation, while this graphic is on screen, Ryan says, 'Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building.' "

That's a lie. That's slander. That's fraud.

Goddamned cowardly creeps.

 

[The Big Dog]

WOW! I did not bother looking at Gravy's article, but compare the article to what Swing said:

"In Kevin Ryan's slide presentation, the change from “he” to “we” simply reflects the updated information as released to the public by Silverstein’s own office via the State Department. But in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts, this is Kevin Ryan lying to support a claim."

What Ryan did was indefensible, and Swing's defense of that deliberate misquote is likewise.

Pathetic Swing.

 

[pomeroo]

WOW! I did not bother looking at Gravy's article, but compare the article to what Swing said:

"In Kevin Ryan's slide presentation, the change from “he” to “we” simply reflects the updated information as released to the public by Silverstein’s own office via the State Department. But in the deceptive world of Mark Roberts, this is Kevin Ryan lying to support a claim."

What Ryan did was indefensible, and Swing's defense of that deliberate misquote is likewise.

Pathetic Swing.

Of course, the conspiracy liars could preserve some of their dignity (yeah, I get it) by producing ONE person in the demolition industry who has heard the phrase "pull it" used to mean "blow up the building."

C'mon, clowns. Do what I did. Start calling demolition companies. It's easy.