Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[RedIbis]

"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.

Calm down. There are several competing accounts on when firefighting operations ceased.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."Paul Joseph Watson | January 5 2006

my bolds

A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation.

 

[SDC]

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.

Well done, Red I.! You have acknowledged that WR's story has changed!

This is the first step in a long road. Please continue

 

[RedIbis]

Well done, Red I.! You have acknowledged that WR's story has changed!

This is the first step in a long road. Please continue

I've stated this before. As Gravy should be commended when he ammends his research or admits his errors, I treat Rodriguez no differently. Memory is not perfect. It could take years for someone to recollect every small detail, especially in such an overwhelming and dramatic event. I imagine his conversations with survivors, firemen, first responders must be a constant process of revelation and recollection.

 

[SDC]

Calm down. There are several competing accounts on when firefighting operations ceased.

my bolds

A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation.

Is anyone actually saying that the firefighting operation continued through the day, or are you waving a red herring at a strawman?

I understood that it was generally known that they had given up fighting the fire some hours before the collapse; but also that there were certainly firefighters and others in the near vicinity. Am I incorrect?

 

[DGM]

Man he's slow. It took him 2 1/2 years to figure that out?

Maybe that's his problem with his statements to Gravy. He just hasn't pieced them together yet.

 

[The Big Dog]

Red ibis says: "A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation."

Of course you are wrong. Moreover, even in Trootherland, one must accept your contention that the conversation took place at 5:00, which, as we have already established, is a number of your own invention.

/I am always mystified why Truthers refuse to concede even the most minor points, even when they are relying on a number or fact they admit they essentially made up. Doing so would enhance their credibility and by refusing to do so, they end up looking like fools, but I guess it long ago stopped being about the Truth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation.

Only if we accept that the conversation was held at 5pm, which you say was "not a specific claim". What time was that conversation actually held? Note that Silverstein doesn't give any idea of the time elapsed between holding the conversation and watching WTC7 fall down; it seems to be a common assumption of the truth movement that the latter immediately followed the former, but there's nothing internal to the quote to prove that assumption valid.

Dave

 

[einsteen]

post removed

 

[Swing Dangler]

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?

I don't see any of that in the email and you can understand why I won't take your word for it.

The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did.

And to my knowledge, firefighters don't demolish buildings. Special companies, the military, and terrorists do.

 

[Belz...]

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

What I DO understand is that it's illegal to blow up a building in Manhattan.

I say again:

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.

That last bit would be the last of their concern.

So, which is it ?

 

[funk de fino]

I've stated this before. As Gravy should be commended when he ammends his research or admits his errors, I treat Rodriguez no differently. Memory is not perfect. It could take years for someone to recollect every small detail, especially in such an overwhelming and dramatic event. I imagine his conversations with survivors, firemen, first responders must be a constant process of revelation and recollection.

Maybe he forgot he told Gravy that he was 100ft from the tower?

Not that it makes any difference to anything about that day and what happened

How about we ask Willie about this claim?

Rodriguez said he was working overtime one weekend cleaning rest rooms on the concourse and mezzanine levels when Alshehri approached him.

"I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?'" Rodriguez told the Daily News.

"Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange," Rodriguez said. "I didn't forget about it."

 

[Belz...]

A "debunker" merely added to the list, making the latest that any firefighters were in the bldg at about 2:30pm. This still very much destroys the specious theory that Silverstein was referring to a firefighting operation.

I was under the impression that he was refering to firefighters AROUND 7 WTC, looking for survivors.

 

[SDC]

I don't see any of that in the email and you can understand why I won't take your word for it.

The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did.

And to my knowledge, firefighters don't demolish buildings. Special companies, the military, and terrorists do.

Welcome to the wide world of specious.

Does Silverstein say he talked with Nigro, or just with a fire chief? I think LashL pointed this out. I don't think you have referred to that.

No demolition could have taken place that day, in that place, without the FD's involvement. Ergo anyone who alleges intentional demolition also alleges FD's involvement.

Deal with it. Stand up for your beliefs.

 

[Swing Dangler]

What I DO understand is that it's illegal to blow up a building in Manhattan.

I say again:

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.

That last bit would be the last of their concern.

So, which is it ?

You are probably correct that it is illegal if the proper channels and procedures, filings, etc. are not followed. The question of course is based upon a false dilemma.

 

[funk de fino]

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

Well, explain this?

Last Survivor of the North Tower of The World Trade Center

 

[ref]

I don't see any of that in the email and you can understand why I won't take your word for it.

Well, actually you do if you pay attention. He says: "Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit." Demolition of WTC 7 is a conspiracy theory. See?

The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did.

First of all, he never said he didn't talk with someone. He said he didn't consult Silverstein, when it came to making the decision to evacuate. Making that decision was his responsibility.

Second, what does any of this "who talked to whom" matter? There was no demolition. All of FDNY would be aware if there was.

 

[The Big Dog]

Swing:

"The confusion I wanted to see cleared up is why he stated he didn't talk with the buildings owner, yet the buildings owner on two separate occasions said they did."

The confusion is your own. The source of the confusion is that you have forgotten the first and primary rule of textual construction: the words used must be read in the context in which they are given. So, let us evaluate the source of your confusion. He said:

“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.”

So you haul out a dictionary and claim that “consulting” in that sentence means ONLY “talked to.” So we are to read that sentence as “He made the decision without talking to anyone.” That would be remarkable! Or it could mean, “I alone made the final decision.” How do we know this? Simple he said “that decision was my responsibility.” That clause makes little sense in your interpretation, it is mere surplusage.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Welcome to the wide world of specious.

Does Silverstein say he talked with Nigro, or just with a fire chief? I think LashL pointed this out. I don't think you have referred to that.

No demolition could have taken place that day, in that place, without the FD's involvement. Ergo anyone who alleges intentional demolition also alleges FD's involvement.

Deal with it. Stand up for your beliefs.

Fair question on LashL's point that I missed.

Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. This site leads me to believe that it indeed is Nigro.

 

[Minadin]

Fair question on LashL's point that I missed.

Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. This site leads me to believe that it indeed is Nigro.

How so? I think you're making inferrences that aren't substantiated by your source material, based on your world view.

 

[CHF]

Yet another clueless twoofer wanders into WTC7-FDNY territory, with the same pathetic results.

Good job, Swing!