Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[Swing Dangler]

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?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Any chance you can contact him and asking him why Larry Silverstein contradicts the statement in his email?

Thanks!

Belz...
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
The same reasons the FD needed to consult with the owner of the building in the article that I linked to before demolishing it.
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.

Belz did you read the article that I linked to earlier where the fire department made a decision to demolish part of a building and then the whole building after consulting with a contractor and the buildings owners?

If you did read it, did you understand some of the hindrances to demolishing that building??

 

[GStan]

So, it looks like Toto needs to donate $100 to the charity of my choice. Or would you like to make the same bet?

How about some Truth Movement Adult Education classes, with a curriculum top-heavy on logic and critical thinking skills?

 

[ref]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Any chance you can contact him and asking him why Larry Silverstein contradicts the statement in his email?

Thanks!

To save us all the time and effort, he does not believe it was a demolition. It was not a demolition. He told me he does not believe in a demolition. He did not give a demolition order, he gave an evacuation order. FDNY was not involved in any demolition.

And to satisfy your curiosity, I told him about the "pull it" nonsense. He just chose to use a more clear phrase "clear a collapse zone" to explain his order, since you truthers twist every possible word out of shape. But no, you can't twist "clear a collapse zone" to mean a demolition, can you?

 

[DGM]

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.

How is he supposed to correct it if Willie won't refute or provide an answer?

About Willie, Have you asked him why he claims to be the last one pulled from the wreckage? He claims this to date. This is a clear lie you know. Why do you question Gravy so adamantly but let Willie slide on everything?
Isn't that kind of a double standard and a road block to you finding the truth?

 

[RedIbis]

How is he supposed to correct it if Willie won't refute or provide an answer?

About Willie, Have you asked him why he claims to be the last one pulled from the wreckage? He claims this to date. This is a clear lie you know. Why do you question Gravy so adamantly but let Willie slide on everything?
Isn't that kind of a double standard and a road block to you finding the truth?

Incorrect. He claims to be the last man outof the tower before it collapsed.

 

[DGM]

Incorrect. He claims to be the last man outof the tower before it collapsed.

And this is still not a lie? I seem to remember some fireman and a couple of cops and a few other lucky souls.

 

[RedIbis]

And this is still not a lie? I seem to remember some fireman and a couple of cops and a few other lucky souls.

We've been over this. Being the last man out before it collapses is not saying he was the last survivor to be pulled from the rubble.

 

[SDC]

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.

Nah. At this time W-Rod has changed his tune. You don't remove it in such case. Put in a footnote or other explanation, rather.

 

[The Big Dog]

We've been over this. Being the last man out before it collapses is not saying he was the last survivor to be pulled from the rubble.

Say, that reminds me, where did you get that 5:00 claim you made earlier?

 

[uk_dave]

We've been over this. Being the last man out before it collapses is not saying he was the last survivor to be pulled from the rubble.

ummmmmmmm

You mean they ...... got into the rubble after the collapse?

 

[DGM]

We've been over this. Being the last man out before it collapses is not saying he was the last survivor to be pulled from the rubble.

Could you point me to the qualifier where he states this. You know, just so everyone he says it to is clear.

 

[RedIbis]

Say, that reminds me, where did you get that 5:00 claim you made earlier?

It was not a claim. To be clear, I was simply estimating the time based on the fact that Larry says we made the decision to pull, and then he says that they watched the bldg come down.

Since the bldg collapsed at about 5:30, should we estimate later?

 

[DGM]

Red:

Hi, I'm William Rodriguez. I'm not with the FDNY. Actually I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public Transcript 021204 Final1_withlinks.pdf

I think he might of told a fib then to NIST.

 

[einsteen]

Metamars,

I didn't read everything, but scanned the thread and only quickly picked up some things that looked interesting. I liked your example of the maximal force that becomes half of it for the two component structure.
Although this is different than springs the physics is consistent with it, because for a series of springs we have

1/k=1/k1+1/k2+...+1/kN

that implies that for two equal springs (k1=k2) we have k=k1/2, if that constant is half then that implies that the derivative of the F(x)=-kx function is also half of the value.

For parallel springs it is a simple addition (instead of the reverse addition) and it is interesting to note that this is exactly the opposite of electrical resistors. IMHO I think you are completely right.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

You must have missed the bit where the press release didn't do any such thing. And I must have missed the bit where a deliberate misquote becomes something other than a deliberate misquote when the person quoted has said something very slightly different since.

Kevin Ryan lied when he changed the quote, and he did so deliberately. You have no argument to counter that, so you're blowing smoke. Your spirited defence of deliberate lying makes it clear how interested you are in finding out the truth here. Morally, you've got no ground to stand on here, and neither has Kevin Ryan.

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

It was not a claim. To be clear, I was simply estimating the time based on the fact that Larry says we made the decision to pull, and then he says that they watched the bldg come down.

Since the bldg collapsed at about 5:30, should we estimate later?

Well, you were wrong about the 11:00, and I note that you repeat waterboy's lie that Larry said "we made the decision to pull," and you ignore Swingy's press release that sets forth the timeline very clearly.

In the face of all that, you essentially pulled the 5:00 time out of your butt?

THAT is the essense of the Truth Movement! Well done!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Metamars,

I didn't read everything, but scanned the thread and only quickly picked up some things that looked interesting. I liked your example of the maximal force that becomes half of it for the two component structure.
Although this is different than springs the physics is consistent with it, because for a series of springs we have

1/k=1/k1+1/k2+...+1/kN

that implies that for two equal springs (k1=k2) we have k=k1/2, if that constant is half then that implies that the derivative of the F(x)=-kx function is also half of the value.

If you're talking about dynamic loading, then no, that's not valid. The spring constant cancels out of the equations for dynamic loading, so the minimum value is still twice the static loading independent of the spring constant. In your example above, the spring constant is halved, but the equilibrium value of x is doubled, so the force is the same.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Well, you were wrong about the 11:00, and I note that you repeat waterboy's lie that Larry said "we made the decision to pull," and you ignore Swingy's press release that sets forth the timeline very clearly.

In the face of all that, you essentially pulled the 5:00 time out of your butt?

THAT is the essense of the Truth Movement! Well done!

Yes, again, 5pm was not a specific claim, an estimation based on the collapse time of the tower in relation to the conversation between Silverstein and the fire chief. It was never meant to be specific.

As for 11:00, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you be more specific?

 

[RedIbis]

Red:



http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public Transcript 021204 Final1_withlinks.pdf

I think he might of told a fib then to NIST.

I've addressed this before and have acknowledged that there are contradictory statements. Not that I'm surprised as Rodriguez would eventually learn a lot more about that day over the years, meeting so many survivors, first responders, etc, all part of the long process of piecing together an incredibly complex day.

As I understand it, he currently refers to the fact that he was the last man to escape the towers before they collapsed.

 

[The Big Dog]

"As for 11:00, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you be more specific?"

I sure can, yesterday you said that all the firefighters were out of WTC7 at 11:00 and soon thereafter a "debunker" proved you were wrong. That was in this thread, yesterday.

Gosh, how soon you forget.