• 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:
Wait, RedIbis is saying that my October, 2006 paper is in error when it states this:


And when the final report is out, we'll know more.

RedIbis, do not ask others to quote your posts for me. I have you on ignore for a reason: your astonishing ignorance combined with your obsession with me makes you a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...

You have me on ignore because I've corrected you several times. You have me on ignore because you can't berate and intimidate me as you do to others.

And don't tell me what to do. This thread is for picking out your errors and as long as I stay within the rules of the forum, that's exactly what I intend on doing.

Speaking of which...
 
...on the same page, "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

there is this incredibly incorrect assumption.

"Debunk911myths.com makes the interesting point that the south face damage seen in the photo below aligns with WTC 7's emergency generator fuel distribution system."

As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face. The fuel distribution system does not extend above the ninth floor. The damage is definitely not consistent with the fuel distribution system. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

This is an error and Mark should correct or eliminate it. In fact, he might want to delete the whole page from his paper.
 
RedIbis said:
...on the same page, "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

there is this incredibly incorrect assumption.

"Debunk911myths.com makes the interesting point that the south face damage seen in the photo below aligns with WTC 7's emergency generator fuel distribution system."

As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face. The fuel distribution system does not extend above the ninth floor. The damage is definitely not consistent with the fuel distribution system. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

This is an error and Mark should correct or eliminate it. In fact, he might want to delete the whole page from his paper.
Click to expand...
At some point Red, maybe you or Swing will find an error which materially changes the entire point of his papers. Keep picking at nits though, I suspect it's pretty much all you've got to live for*

*in terms of your 9/11 CT fantasy.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
...on the same page, "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

there is this incredibly incorrect assumption.

"Debunk911myths.com makes the interesting point that the south face damage seen in the photo below aligns with WTC 7's emergency generator fuel distribution system."

As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face. The fuel distribution system does not extend above the ninth floor. The damage is definitely not consistent with the fuel distribution system. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

This is an error and Mark should correct or eliminate it. In fact, he might want to delete the whole page from his paper.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the damage didn't align with the generators? I don't believe the site (which was simply referred to as having made an interesting point, not claiming it as fact) is claiming nesc that the damage went below the 9th floor or conclusively shows that there was damage to the fuel tanks.
 
Well, yea, 'cause the end result of both of Red's and Swing's arguments is exactly the same: Uncontrolled fires and heavy damage sealed the fate of the WTC7.

Was it from the fuel tanks?

Does it really matter? Unless said truthers can come up with a competing theory that fits the facts better this entire thread is a huge pile of feces.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
At some point Red, maybe you or Swing will find an error which materially changes the entire point of his papers. Keep picking at nits though, I suspect it's pretty much all you've got to live for*

*in terms of your 9/11 CT fantasy.
Click to expand...

Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.
 
RedIbis said:
Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.
Click to expand...

I hate to poke fun Red, but this comment is laughable. The "pointing out factual errors in Mark's paper" fray has been going on for a while now, and so far you are asking for corrections on something that is unofficial until NIST publishes their official WTC paper. At best it is a possible, or likely error based on the information at the time.

For my sake, please list the FACTUAL Errors you have found in his paper. Shouldn't take you long.:D

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I hate to poke fun Red, but this comment is laughable. The "pointing out factual errors in Mark's paper" fray has been going on for a while now, and so far you are asking for corrections on something that is unofficial until NIST publishes their official WTC paper. At best it is a possible, or likely error based on the information at the time.

For my sake, please list the FACTUAL Errors you have found in his paper. Shouldn't take you long.:D

TAM:)
Click to expand...


How about post 1043, about five posts up?
 
RedIbis said:
How about post 1043, about five posts up?
Click to expand...

How about addressing the posts you've studiously ignored in the Naming Names thread, RedIbis? 270 and 301 for starters.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
...on the same page, "Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?"

there is this incredibly incorrect assumption.

"Debunk911myths.com makes the interesting point that the south face damage seen in the photo below aligns with WTC 7's emergency generator fuel distribution system."

As is clear in the photo, this gash extends from the roof down through the south face. The fuel distribution system does not extend above the ninth floor. The damage is definitely not consistent with the fuel distribution system. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1J.pdf

This is an error and Mark should correct or eliminate it. In fact, he might want to delete the whole page from his paper.
Click to expand...

"Aligns" means to line up. he did not say that the gash directly crosses or passes through the area in question. Also, how do we know how far down the south face the gash persisted? We can see from the photo that the damage start up top, but smoke obliterates the end of the gash below, does it not??

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
Once Swing and I get through with Gravy's work, there won't be anything left to pick.
Click to expand...

You and "Swing" (as you call him/her) had best get started then, since you haven't managed to land even a single body blow yet although you've been trying for quite some time now.
 
T.A.M. said:
"Aligns" means to line up. he did not say that the gash directly crosses or passes through the area in question. Also, how do we know how far down the south face the gash persisted? We can see from the photo that the damage start up top, but smoke obliterates the end of the gash below, does it not??

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Gravy is trying to suggest that the gash aligns with the fuel distribution system. It simply does not. The gash begins at the top, the system is only as high as the ninth floor.

Deceptive and misleading information. Gravy should omit it.
 
RedIbis said:
Isn't there some rule about crossthread stalking?
Click to expand...

Usually I would agree with you, but he has a point; exactly how much do you expect to hide in other threads when your theories are legitimately under attack?

Isn't there some rule about crossthread avoidance of contrary evidence?
 
RedIbis said:
Gravy is trying to suggest that the gash aligns with the fuel distribution system. It simply does not. The gash begins at the top, the system is only as high as the ninth floor.

Deceptive and misleading information. Gravy should omit it.
Click to expand...

I would say it is speculative, but then again he does not state it as otherwise, if you read his wording he calls it "interesting", and he is referring to "Debunk911myths.com" and their take on it. This still is not a FACTUAL ERROR.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
I would say it is speculative, but then again he does not state it as otherwise, if you read his wording he calls it "interesting". This still is not a FACTUAL ERROR.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

The factual error is that the gash aligns with the fuel system. It doesn't. Whether the gash was caused by the fuel system explosions is pure speculation.
 
twinstead said:
Usually I would agree with you, but he has a point; exactly how much do you expect to hide in other threads when your theories are legitimately under attack?

Isn't there some rule about crossthread avoidance of contrary evidence?
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, Lash is a female. The questions in that thread are based on speculation. I've stated my case over there, repeatedly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom