• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

Gravy said:
[qimg]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RyanFraud1.jpg[/qimg]


*******

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.
Click to expand...

I dare say that is rather damning to Swing's factual error assertion. For those still keeping score:

Thread page = 19
Factual errors still = 0
Assertions of factual errors that would actually be relevant and meaningful if they were actually errors still = 0
 
GStan said:
I dare say that is rather damning to Swing's factual error assertion. For those still keeping score:

Thread page = 19
Factual errors still = 0
Assertions of factual errors that would actually be relevant and meaningful if they were actually errors still = 0
Click to expand...

Yaknow straw dangler mentions somewhere on his blog or a link off of it that he spends all his time on debunking sites trying to debunk debunkers, and none on troofer message boards.
:dl:
And every single point he tries to make. he fails.
 

Attachments

  • fail.jpg
    fail.jpg
    36.8 KB · Views: 2
Swing Dangler said:
3. If this holds true to WTC 7 and CD, these issue need to be addressed for the CT crowd:

a. Who rigged the building in the first place?

b. When was the building rigged?

c. Why was it rigged?
Click to expand...
You left out a very important question:

d. Why did the explosives, powerful enough to bring down the building, make no loud and distinctive booms typical of powerful explosives going off?
 
Swing Dangler said:
I would have to bring into question his entire statement...


Yet Larry Silverstein and his later released public statement states that Larry was consulted.


So tell me...who is wrong and who is right? Who is lying and who is not?
Click to expand...


Why do you assume that either of them is lying? Why do you assume that Mr. Silverstein spoke to Mr. Nigro?

Mr. Silverstein says that he spoke to a fire commander, but that doesn't mean that it was Chief Nigro. He may have spoken to any one of several fire commanders - i.e., an operations commander, an incident commander, a battalion commander, etc.

Perhaps you should look into that rather than just assuming that Mr. Silverstein spoke to Mr. Nigro, and before alleging - without a scintilla of evidence - that one of them must be lying.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

[My bolding]

No, it isn't.

There is no evidence that Mr. Silverstein spoke specifically to Mr. Nigro that day. He spoke to someone, that is clear, but unless you call him up and clarify who it was that he spoke to, I don't think that you can draw the conclusions that you have drawn. He is probably, like you, not very conversant with the heirarchy of the FDNY and probably doesn't know one type of "fire commander" from another.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
RyanFraud1.jpg



*******

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.
Click to expand...


It is an out and out lie, without question. It is also slander (when he said it live at the event). It is also libel (when he broadcast it and/or published it on the internet). It would also be fraud if he makes money from his false statements but I, personally, do not know if he has, as yet (although he may well have with his "legal defence fund" farce.)


So, the question remains, and I'll direct this to SwingDangler since he/she is the one trying to defend Kevin Ryan's obvious lie here: SwingDangler, why do you attempt to defend Kevin Ryan's obvious, blatant, and clearly intentional lie?
 
RedIbis said:
There's also the sticky issue that "pull it" is unlikely to refer to the firefighting operation since there were no firefighters in WTC 7 since 11:30am.
Click to expand...

there's also the sticky issue of you failing to provide proof that your e-mail was genuine.
not a computer expert? please don't hint everyone what my signature will be as a reminder of who you really are.
I will also hold totovader to his claim of providing proof that you already donated money to the charity he provided for you.
 
SDC-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.
Click to expand...
Nope not at all. He consulted with Silverstein about what to do with the building or the operations. In other words he exchanged views and in the context of Larry's statement it sounds like that is exactly what they did. "Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." Well notice the term smartest. What other smart options did they exchange views about and rule out?

But then again, the Chief says he didn't consult with the buildings owner.
The buildings owner stated that he did. Larry's press release said he did. Who is lying who is not?

GStan said:
They didn't need it. They got it. But they certainly didn't need it.
Click to expand...
According to your debunk friends, the Chief didn't even contact the owner.

johnny karate-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.
Click to expand...
He also stated he didn't consult with the buildings owner but Larry states otherwise. So the whole email is called into question because of this discrepancy.
If the decision was made to "demolish" the building without the proper chain of actions, permissions, insurance sign offs, etc. it might be wise to suggest fire and damage was the cause. Besides, he only made a decision, fire departments don't demolish buildings, as in the example I linked to.

16.5You see, Swing? He made the decision. So, try to stop parsing out words, you are really, really bad at it.[/QUOTE
Parsing words? Did he consult with the buildings owner or not? He says he didn't. Larry says he did. Which is it? Until this contradiction can be factually resolved the rest of the email is subject to the same scrutiny.

Besides, how can the good Chief speak for NIST or FEMA anyway with regards to the cause of collapse? Gotcha.

And notice he states: clear a collapse zone, not "pull it", pull them, etc. Apparently whoever contacted the good chief steered clear of Lucky Larry's particular phrase as the Chief doesn't mention that at all.
So we have- "pull it" mean:
1. remove firefighters out of the building that they weren't even in.
2. clear a collapse zone.
3. or demolish a building.

FEMA contradicts number 1. The Chief contradicts number 2 until it he clears up the confusion regarding his contact or non-contact with the building owner. And considering the characteristics of the collapse itself, number 3 seems to be the best answer.

It is an out and out lie, without question. It is also slander (when he said it live at the event). It is also libel (when he broadcast it and/or published it on the internet). It would also be fraud if he makes money from his false statements but I, personally, do not know if he has, as yet (although he may well have with his "legal defence fund" farce.)
So, the question remains, and I'll direct this to SwingDangler since he/she is the one trying to defend Kevin Ryan's obvious lie here: SwingDangler, why do you attempt to defend Kevin Ryan's obvious, blatant, and clearly intentional lie?
Click to expand...

Out and out lie without question? So you tested the steel for explosive residue to qualify that comment? Never mind I now the answer so of course that statement is wrong. Don't forget what FEMA stated about the probability of fire causing the collapse! You know a low probability.What burns hot enough in an office fire to melt holes in steel?;) That big 'mystery' everyone is aware of.

Oh and if you want to prove it wasn't a lie, hook Lucky Larry up to a lie detector and issue forth the questions. Until otherwise it remains a valid interpretation of his statements.

I (a male) did not watch the presentation and as you can tell if you read the thread regarding this error, the focus of my comment was on the Mark's comment on the slide's wording. The suggestion of a CD remains a valid theory until it is dis-proven of course. This doesn't make it a lie.


16.5 WOW! I did not bother looking at Gravy's article, but compare the article
Click to expand...
Imagine that, defending something you've never read. How dare you! :newlol

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.
Click to expand...
You must have missed Larry's press release that qualified the change in Ryan's slide. But that doesn't surprise me considering you didn't even read Mark's paper.
Click to expand...
 
* Waterboy mode on:

"[The FDNY had to ask Silverstein's permission to blow up the World Trade Center] for the same reasons the FD needed to consult with the owner of the building in the article that I linked to before demolishing it."

* Waterboy mode off.

I am sure that Swing will back me up on this minor change, seeing as how he valiantly scrambled to Waterboy’s defense when Waterboy changed:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

To

“I said .... maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And [the Fire Commander and I ] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

/INTELLECTUALY BANKRUPT. Don’t the Truthers ever get mad when they find out the stars of their movement lie to them?

Swing Sez: “Imagine that, defending something you've never read. How dare you!”

Can you not get a single thing correct in your whole existence? I did not say I did not read it, I said I did not look at it. But please allow me to assure you that I have read it , and simply did not look back at it, given how pathetic and craven the Trooth movement’s reliance on this whole “pull it” nonsense is.
 
Last edited:
Swing Dangler said:
The same reasons the FD needed to consult with the owner of the building in the article that I linked to before demolishing it.
Click to expand...

In an emergency situation ? Oh, please.

If the building was demolished because it posed a danger, there is no reason to hide it. If it was a secret demo because of some nefarious purpose, they would surely not need such a confirmation from Silverstein on the spot.
 
"You must have missed Larry's press release that qualified the change in Ryan's slide. But that doesn't surprise me considering you didn't even read Mark's paper."

Ah yes, I did miss the press release that gave permission to Waterboy to change a direct quote from "they made the decision" to "we made the decision."

Don't you get angry that Waterboy deceived you?
 
Oh my, still this nonsense.

And swingler, it was me who was in contact with Chief Nigro. You just don't get his message, do you?
 
HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP said:
there's also the sticky issue of you failing to provide proof that your e-mail was genuine.
not a computer expert? please don't hint everyone what my signature will be as a reminder of who you really are.
I will also hold totovader to his claim of providing proof that you already donated money to the charity he provided for you.
Click to expand...


Heh? Are we going back to this again? Darat already stated that he would take the email down if he didn't receive confirmation that it was genuine.

Darat did not take it down in the 24 hr period. In fact, he received the necessary email verification which reads as follows:


Mr. Darat,
Regarding your request about permission to use my email sent to REDIBIS in the thread http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100488&page=8
Mr. RedIbis does have the permission to use the emails and it has been verified by me to be 100% authentic.
If you can , please do not remove the quotes since I stand by them.
Respectfully
William Rodriguez
P.S.- I BCC'd Mr. RedIbis on this note as well.
Click to expand...


So, it looks like Toto needs to donate $100 to the charity of my choice. Or would you like to make the same bet?
 
Swing Dangler said:
Nope not at all. He consulted with Silverstein about what to do with the building or the operations. In other words he exchanged views and in the context of Larry's statement it sounds like that is exactly what they did. "Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." Well notice the term smartest. What other smart options did they exchange views about and rule out?
Click to expand...

Blimey, talk about over-analysing!
 
DGM said:
RedIbis:
Did he clarify the all too critical question of how far from the building he was?
Click to expand...

He was clear that he wasn't 100ft and Gravy was wrong about getting that info from him.

This bassackward strategy Gravy employs suggests that he gets to keep a claim unless his error is corrected. This is ridiculous. If his claim is refuted and he has no source, he should remove it from his paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom