Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[jhunter1163]

Stick:

I'll concede that at least some of the LIHOP scenarios are possible. That doesn't mean I think they're likely; in fact, they're extremely unlikely. But they are possible.

 

[StickMan2008]

This type of thing is typical of the "New Truth" movement, which is running to distance themselves as far from LC as possible, mainly because everything in LC has had the snot debunked out of it. The "Old Truth" is dying fast; hardly anything is heard from Avery and crew anymore.

The "New Truth" is kind of "LIHOP-lite", or, as TAM would put it, LIHOI. It focuses on the negligence and foulups and uncertain responses of that day and sneers, "Well, isn't that conveeeeeeeenient?". It's still wrong, but much harder to debunk because it focuses on imputing motives rather than actual facts.

It's much harder to debunk because it's not a walking straw man.

Loose Change is a joke.

Not because it has been debunked but the manner in which it was presented.

The speculations that Avery makes for instance about a missile being fired in a frame before the tower hits is just freaking ridiculous.

I think he goes as far as to say the real passengers were dumped across an ocean or something.

Loose Change has ZERO smoking gun facts.


People haven't gravitated away from it because it's been debunked, they have gravitated away from it because they are starting to realize it's by far the worst piece of trash that could be the face of the Truth movement as they could find.


That movie is solely responsible for the image of the movement.


Everyone thinks a bunch of teenagers with wild imaginations are the only people who question the official story and they only do so with absurd speculation revolving around the planes and buildings.


The ONLY decent half truth in that movie is the reference to Operation Northwoods but it's at the very beginning and it doesn't make up for the 90 minutes of straw man.

 

[StickMan2008]

Stick:

I'll concede that at least some of the LIHOP scenarios are possible. That doesn't mean I think they're likely; in fact, they're extremely unlikely. But they are possible.

And that's all it takes to be a free thinker.

Admit the other side as a possibility no matter how vehemently opposed you are to it.

 

[DGM]

Stickman:
In light of this statement

Personally, I do not find myself doing this. Because if someone really wants to find the truth, they will objectively look at something that could prove one of their previous beliefs wrong.

And the fact that several investigations into 9/11 were being done by the government. We shouldn't see any more statements like this from you.

And not just because of the appeal to emotion, but because the story of these women shows you how an investigation of any kind into 9/11 was clearly not wanted by the Bush administration.

 

[Swing Dangler]

I dare cry hypocracy!

Try these links (if you want to):
http://i.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931731.91102.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/u41/bankst/upload/35931732.91103.jpg
I get so fed up with that "two isolated pockets of fire" argument. How ignorant can one be?

Now this is quite comical.

You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires, but accept without question the statements of firefighters about WTC 7 despite the visual record of WTC 7.

The hypocrisies of debunkers is simply amazing.

And now for a 10 second error that I found in Gravy's paper:

This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling –>damage from elevator stopping (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>heavy smoke (possibly pushed down by initial blast, possibly drawn down by falling elevator, or both –> fireball coming down shaft.

Now lets examine the facts from Arturo Griffith as found in the CNN transcripts found here:

A. GRIFFITH: Well, I was on my way from B-2 to 49th floor. And as I took off, it was amount it was a matter of seconds -- five, six, seven seconds, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my said and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening.

When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator, and I think I'm sure that that was what broke my leg. And then they had another explosion and the panel that threw me, you know, against the wall, and I guess I was unconscious for a couple of minutes because somebody else was in the elevator with me, and they say that they was trying to get my attention and they didn't get no response from me.
Additional information:
'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.Source: Here."
And now for the proper correction from Swing that Gravy should make:

This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling->debris hit top of elevator –>elevator stops->after stopping ,damage from explosion (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>another explosion->panel throws him against the wall->Unconscious or near unconscious->black smoke->sees light-->rescued by someone->tells rescuers of another person in the elevator--> rescuers go after woman and pull her out->seconds later a fireball came down shaft.

Compare that factual account to Gravy:

This sequence would seem to fit Arturo Griffith's #50 freight elevator experience: impact from above –>elevator falling –>damage from elevator stopping (doors buckling inward, injuring his legs)–>heavy smoke (possibly pushed down by initial blast, possibly drawn down by falling elevator, or both –> fireball coming down shaft.

Notice any changes?

1. Gravy omitted or ignored 2 additional explosions after the initial plane impact that severed the cables.
2. Gravy attributes the damage from an explosion to the elevator stopping not to an explosion as Arturo states.
3. Gravy omits the third explosion in Arturo's account.
4. Gravy omits the second person.
5 Gravy omits the time frame between impact and fireball.
4. Gravy inserts his own thoughts on what happened instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, ie. misrepresentation of the events, omission of other possibilities for black smoke presence, omission of additional explosions.

This little segment alone displays the apparent possible motivation for his paper..not the revelation of facts and truth mind you, but an attempt to spin and distort one man's account in support of the official story.

Do you want more?

 

[The Big Dog]

Stick:

"People haven't gravitated away from it because it's been debunked, they have gravitated away from it because they are starting to realize it's by far the worst piece of trash that could be the face of the Truth movement as they could find."

That is false. I suggest that you spend some time around the No-Planers, and Kevin Barrett. They are the type of people who say ridiculous things like the raging fires at the WTC were faked, and how could the alleged victims at the Trade Center be exposed to such heat, because people were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

And then they laugh and say, hey look there is Super Woman, immune to the raging heat and ignoring the fact that dozens of people jumped to their deaths. Hahaha!

But you'd never say anything as stupid as that, correct?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Unless stickman comes up with an acknowledgement that those pictures directly contradict his claims regarding the fire's intensity, I hereby recommend that he placed on global ignore for intellectual crimes against the forum.

 

[jhunter1163]

Loose Change is a joke.

Well, we're agreed on that.

I like this forum because the posters here challenge you to bring facts to the table.

However, when you're talking about motives for a particular set of circumstances, it's harder for skeptics to accept "conspiracy" as a motive when "incompetence" adequately explains the event.

Ultimately, I don't believe we'll ever be able to completely disprove LIHOP. The trouble is, BushCo are both underhanded and incompetent; therefore, you can't say for sure that they weren't capable of at least looking the other way.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

It's very simple, really; just say "Mark Roberts said X (link), but the truth is actually Y(link)."

The errors of Mark Roberts are those of any sophist OS pedaler.

blah blah blah...

So much for "simple".

Much of what I initially believe is wrong, and gets corrected with research.

Don't worry about it, Mark. It happens to everyone. In fact, I thought I was wrong once, but it turns out I was mistaken.

 

[DGM]

Swing:

Now this is quite comical.

You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires, but accept without question the statements of firefighters about WTC 7 despite the visual record of WTC 7.

The hypocrisies of debunkers is simply amazing.

So how much fire is 2 hand lines worth when its 2 floors below the real action? Do you really think people fall for your junk anymore? Time to hire a new writer.

 

[The Big Dog]

Swingy

"You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires, but accept without question the statements of firefighters about WTC 7 despite the visual record of WTC 7."

Now this is quite comical.

You know he reached only the 78th floor, and was talking about the 78th floor only, yet you claim 1. he was also talking about the fires above which the visual record show were subject to massive heat and fires; 2. you claim that we are fed up with this statement, as opposed to be being absolutely fed up with dissemblers, such as yourself, that claim that this statement about the 78th floor has anything to do with floors 79 and up. It is cherry picking at its worst, and you are once again guilty of it.

And you spelled hypocrisy wrong.

 

[jhunter1163]

Well, at last. Here's Swing with an actual claim about Arturo Griffith, to his credit. I'm at work now and can't confirm the accuracy and context of what he's posted, but we've at least got something to work with.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Swingy

"You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires, but accept without question the statements of firefighters about WTC 7 despite the visual record of WTC 7."

Now this is quite comical.

You know he reached only the 78th floor, and was talking about the 78th floor only, yet you claim 1. he was also talking about the fires above which the visual record show were subject to massive heat and fires; 2. you claim that we are fed up with this statement, as opposed to be being absolutely fed up with dissemblers, such as yourself, that claim that this statement about the 78th floor has anything to do with floors 79 and up. It is cherry picking at its worst, and you are once again guilty of it.
And you spelled hypocrisy wrong.

1. If you would please link to where I claimed he was talking about the fires above the 78th floor.
2. Please link to where I claimed the statement about the 78th floor had everything to do with floors above.
3. Thanks for avoiding the WTC 7 I brought up.
4. And terrific job of avoiding Gravy's nonsense that I pointed out.

So do you accept that debunkers do the same thing with WTC 7?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Well, at last. Here's Swing with an actual claim about Arturo Griffith, to his credit. I'm at work now and can't confirm the accuracy and context of what he's posted, but we've at least got something to work with.

It is from a CNN transcript. You can't get there from work?

 

[jhunter1163]

It is from a CNN transcript. You can't get there from work?

Frankly, I'm lucky I can get here. I'll be happy to review this for accuracy and context when I get home. And, for the record, I'm assuming that it is accurate and in context.

 

[1337m4n]

Why would I participate in a thread that refers to me as a "twoofer" or "truther"?

If the OP is sincere and wishes to catalog the errors that the preeminent researcher on this site has made, I suggest you begin with a bit of respect and drop the silly labels.

I've heard every possible rationale for why it's ok for the regulars here to use labels and none of them inspire productive debate. Let me know when you wish to treat your opponent in debate with a basic level of respect and I'll participate with civility and accuracy.

I must agree with RedIbis. I often allow my frustration to get the best of me, and as satisfying as it is to use condescension, it's not really productive. We should show civility to all those who show civility to us.

But, Red, this only applies to the word "twoofer", which is our own bastardization of "truther". The latter word is accepted by the Truth Movement as a label for who they are. I mean, if you really don't want to be called what the rest of the movement is calling itself, we COULD make a special exception for you, but the point is there should be nothing inherently offensive about "truther".

"Twoofer", on the other hand, is used in a condescending manner. I tend to avoid it myself, though I'm still not as civil as I'd like myself to be.

 

[The Big Dog]

1. If you would please link to where I claimed he was talking about the fires above the 78th floor.

Uh, right here in this thread: "You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires."

2. Please link to where I claimed the statement about the 78th floor had everything to do with floors above.

You want a link to your post, uh, OK it is up there ^^^

3. Thanks for avoiding the WTC 7 I brought up.

What was that point again? That some unidentified pictures taken from some vantage point don't show fires at WTC7? Is that your point. Really? Yeah, you win then (here comes the cherry picking!)

4. And terrific job of avoiding Gravy's nonsense that I pointed out.

Yes I absolutely admit that I did avoid it. I did think that Gravy will respond to you, if you wish me to address it, I'll defer to Gravy. Am I a bad person for doing that?

"So do you accept that debunkers do the same thing with WTC 7?"

Cherry pick quotes and lie about the extent of the fires in WTC 1, 2, 7? No, but thanks for admitting that the Twoofers do.

 

[jhunter1163]

Guys, let's be fair. Swing has posted an account of Arturo Griffith's testimony that is different from Mark's and is presumably accurate. Let's examine this, OK?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Frankly, I'm lucky I can get here. I'll be happy to review this for accuracy and context when I get home. And, for the record, I'm assuming that it is accurate and in context.

Thanks for the assumption. It is accurate and within context.

16.5-You know he reached only the 78th floor, and was talking about the 78th floor only, yet you claim 1. he was also talking about the fires above which the visual record show were subject to massive heat and fires; 2. you claim that we are fed up with this statement, as opposed to be being absolutely fed up with dissemblers, such as yourself, that claim that this statement about the 78th floor has anything to do with floors 79 and up. It is cherry picking at its worst, and you are once again guilty of it.

Back to this, sure I'm aware of what he is describing. Now you need to combine that fact with these:
Granted it is the same floor...
78th floor-"Remembrance of Vijay" - a WTC victim on the 78th floor:

They had to head to the 78th floor elevator lobby. While in the lobby waiting for the elevator with a whole bunch of people, the second plane hit their tower. The lights went out on the floor and many people were hurt, some killed. The emergency lights came on and people were checking to see who was OK. Vijay was apparently unhurt, just covered in dust. He then got a fire extinguisher to put out some of the fires that were on the floor but the fire extinguisher didn't work!Source: Here

An account by Stanley Praimnath, a survivor from the 81st floor of WTC 2:
As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. ... Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere. Source: Here

"The Ashen Guy" - another survivor from the 81st floor:
"There were about 230 people on the 81st floor and I was one of the last ones out. We took the stairs. There was smoke, but it wasn’t fire smoke, it was dry wall smoke and dust. The fire was above us."Source: Here

A little further up...
An account by Brian Clark, an 84th floor survivor:
"You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall." [BBC] The sprinkler system had turned on and had started to do something, but it wasn't doing its job as it should, so there was water sloshing down the stairways. [Nova]

The office of Euro Brokers on the 84th floor:
Most of the company's trading floor there was annihilated. Yet even there — at the bull's-eye of the airplane's impact — other people were alive. [New York Times]

Now 16.5, can you support this claim...

You know he reached only the 78th floor, and was talking about the 78th floor only, yet you claim 1. he was also talking about the fires above which the visual record show were subject to massive heat and fires;

Now those floors above the firefighter where those survivors came from you can claim they are wrong about their experience and debunk them as well with some pictures of the interior of the tower showing massive heat and fires?

I'm mean surely you have some evidence that proves these people wrong. If so I would love to see it.

 

[Swing Dangler]

1. If you would please link to where I claimed he was talking about the fires above the 78th floor.

Uh, right here in this thread: "You are fed up with a firefighter's statement's suggesting the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires."

1. Your missing a lot of data there, like me stating the firefighter was talking about the condition of the fire above him.

2. Please link to where I claimed the statement about the 78th floor had everything to do with floors above. You want a link to your post, uh, OK it is up there ^

Your missing the part where I stated the firefighter was talking about the floor above him. Tsk, tsk. Are you new at this? You can read about other folks above that firefighter in the post below.

3. Thanks for avoiding the WTC 7 I brought up.
What was that point again? That some unidentified pictures taken from some vantage point don't show fires at WTC7? Is that your point. Really? Yeah, you win then (here comes the cherry picking!)

Well at least then you admit that debunkers (in general not all mind you) will accept evidence that favors their position but deny or ignore evidence that does not favor their position.

4. And terrific job of avoiding Gravy's nonsense that I pointed out.

Yes I absolutely admit that I did avoid it. I did think that Gravy will respond to you, if you wish me to address it, I'll defer to Gravy. Am I a bad person for doing that?

He won't respond, he has me on ignore. There is no need to defer to Gravy. Click on the link to his paper, find the quote, compare it to historical record and come to your own conclusion. Are you bad for doing that? Of course not. Is it in the spirit of the thread? No.

"So do you accept that debunkers do the same thing with WTC 7?"

Cherry pick quotes and lie about the extent of the fires in WTC 1, 2, 7? No, but thanks for admitting that the Twoofers do.

Hmmm you just lumped 3 towers into to 1 arguement. The firefighter quote was in regards to the South Tower. The supporting evidence to show it wasn't just cherrypicking by listing other people's near and on the impact floor.
Now if you want to call "cherrypicking" you should show the quote in context and then explain how I "cherrypicked" the quote to support my position when in fact the quote or quotes would not support my position.

My whole point with WTC 7 exercise:
1. You accept firefighter quotes about 7 but ignore the photographic record used to prove some of the quotes are unsubstantiated by the visual record and stand by your position, which you admitted to above.
2. But when a truther uses quotes to support a position you cry foul, cherry picking, etc. etc.

Can I get a can of hypocrisy with your order of bunk?