Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[SDC]

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

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.



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.


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?"

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?

"Cherrypicking" may not be the best term but you (S.Dangler) certainly are just stringing a bunch of stuff together that doesn't advance your argument. Actually, I can't tell whether you've got an argument. You've lost me as to what you are trying to prove with all this. Please explain this sentence:

"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."

I mean, explain it in a coherent way. Please break the sentence into several distinct clauses or sentences, as the poor thing deserves.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Wrong? Why would you at all think that they were wrong, I am certain that what they say was correct. Now, lets break a couple down:

Brian Clark, and you bold "84th floor survivor." I assume that you want us to believe that when he saw these flames he was on the 84th floor, but in point of fact, he said he had already descended, and WAS IN THE STAIRWAY. You must acknowledge this, certainly? You don't know where he was, do you?

The 81st floor survivor says he was in the LOBBY when the plane hit. You do understand that, correct?

Stanley Praimnath, a survivor from the 81st floor of WTC 2: “Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department.”

I agree fully with every single thing in that statement.

How you believe that New York Times article helps you is beyond me. People survived for a time after the crashes and the collapse, of that there is no question. Even on the 84th floor.

I can assure you that all floors above 78 were not instantly and completely engulfed in flame, and no one has ever claimed otherwise, and it is disingenuous to even imply that. But you will anyway.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

Your (sic) missing the part where I stated the firefighter was talking about the floor above him. Tsk, tsk. Are you new at this?"

Oh man, I can read you like a book. I knew it! You were going to say that your sentence "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" was really just a comment only about 78, and not the upper floors! And then you dropped in the "tsk, tsk"! How dare I not know that your comment that “the interior condition of the Tower was not subject to massive heat and fires” was only intended to refer to that part of the building that was not subject to massive heat and fires!

I have never seen such pathetic dancing in my life. And you say you are interested in the Truth.

Anyway, as to WTC 7, post the pictures you are talking about here.

 

[MikeW]

The Clarke quote relates to "somewhere around the 77th floor":

Somewhere around the 77th floor, the stairway walls were cracked, and you could look through the cracks and see flames. They were just quietly licking up, not a roaring inferno. And there was some smoke there, but again I think the stairs were pressurized, pushing the air out so we had less smoke in the stairway than you might imagine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/n...d=7&ei=5070&en=cfd7225a3377482e&ex=1197090000

 

[AMTMAN]

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

Sounds a lot like what you do Swing. Remember this quote of yours.

The burden of proof is now upon the debunker's shoulders.

< http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85833&page=2 >

Well as soon as the facts came out regarding the original subject you pulled a disappearing act. You didn't even bother to defend the truther side when I statrted the thread bellow.

< http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93401 >

 

[Swing Dangler]

"Cherrypicking" may not be the best term but you (S.Dangler) certainly are just stringing a bunch of stuff together that doesn't advance your argument. Actually, I can't tell whether you've got an argument. You've lost me as to what you are trying to prove with all this. Please explain this sentence:

"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."

I mean, explain it in a coherent way. Please break the sentence into several distinct clauses or sentences, as the poor thing deserves.

Absolutely and fair enough as I appreciate the civility you display!

My original disturbance with the issue started here.
My whole point with this exercise was to show the hypocrisy of some debunkers. Some mind you, not all.

In this case you have a couple of exterior photos used to debunk the comments of a firefighter in the South Tower climbing stairs to put out some isolated pockets of fire. Truthers claim the fire wasn't that bad, couldn't lead to collapse blah blah etc by using this firefighter's statements. Bell is apparently sick of hearing the quotes used to support the truther position and then offers photos to 'debunk' it.

To offer a counter to this logic, I used WTC 7 as an example.
Lots of quotes about the whole building being on fire, every floor, etc, yet the visual record doesn't show this.

1. Some 'debunkers' 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 and not visual evidence you cry foul, cherry picking, etc. etc.

The point being: the hypocrisy some debunks use against truthers.

In reality, I was hoping someone might address Gravy's error that I pointed out in my original post. But that keeps getting avoided like the plague.
Does that clear it up?

16.5-

Wrong? Why would you at all think that they were wrong, I am certain that what they say was correct. Now, lets break a couple down:

Brian Clark, and you bold "84th floor survivor." I assume that you want us to believe that when he saw these flames he was on the 84th floor, but in point of fact, he said he had already descended, and WAS IN THE STAIRWAY. You must acknowledge this, certainly? You don't know where he was, do you?

ROFLMAO! Uh no, I don't want you to assume anything. He surived the 84th floor impact and fire.
Here is his initial description of the impact.

Brian Clark's office was on the floor where the upper wing of the aircraft hit.
BRIAN CLARK: Our room fell apart at that moment. Complete destruction. For seven to ten seconds there was this enormous sway in the building and it was all one way and I just felt in my heart that oh my gosh, we're going over.

Not a lot of that fire and heat you mentioned in your earlier post. He then descends
He then ...

BRIAN CLARK: So we started down that stairway and we only went three floors. There was a group of seven of us, myself and six others. We met two people that had come up from the floor 80, a heavy set woman and, by comparison, a rather frail male. She said stop, stop, you've got to go up and she laboured up to join us moving very slowly, she was such a big woman. She said you've got to go, you've got to go up, you can't go down, there's too much smoke and flame below.

84-3=81. Or in this case the 81st floor...

BRIAN CLARK: Drywall had been blown off the wall and was lying on, you know propped up against the railing here and, and we had to move it, shovel it aside. 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.

How you believe that New York Times article helps you is beyond me. People survived for a time after the crashes and the collapse, of that there is no question. Even on the 84th floor.

Well you stated that those floors were subject to massive heat and fires.
Perhaps you should clarify how massive. Massive, but not massive enough to kill survivors but massive enough to weaken steel? Is that what your suggesting?

I can assure you that all floors above 78 were not instantly and completely engulfed in flame, and no one has ever claimed otherwise, and it is disingenuous to even imply that. But you will anyway.

It wasn't? It sure looked liked it from the visual record. Or are you suggesting it was engulfed in flame for a brief time and then evolved into a typical office fire?

Here is you quote in regards to the areas above 78....

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 if you would, post or link to the visual record that refutes the survivors testimony and supports your statement that the visual record shows the floors (you didn't mention what part or all of the floor btw) to be subject to massive heat and fires. Or at least post pictures of the interior of the South Tower that refutes the statements of survivors? Can you?

Oh and learn the quote button function, it will help all of us.

If you want to continue this line or reasoning I will appeal to the Mods to move the comments as an attempt to derail the thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

"If you want to continue this line or reasoning I will appeal to the Mods to move the comments as an attempt to derail the thread."

Whoops, sorry Swing. From this day forward I promise never again to point out that you are using quotes in a grossly misleading way.

Keep chasing that TRUTH, Swing-y!

Stick to the topic at hand and do not personalize the argument.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Bell]

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.

There is NOTHING comical about this, Swing. It is the troofers who MISUSE chief Palmer's quote to 'prove' there where no massive fires inside the tower(s). THAT argument is BS, THAT is what I'm fed up with.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Sounds a lot like what you do Swing. Remember this quote of yours.
The burden of proof is now upon the debunker's shoulders.
< http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85833&page=2 >

Well as soon as the facts came out regarding the original subject you pulled a disappearing act. You didn't even bother to defend the truther side when I statrted the thread bellow.
< http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93401 >

You want me to defend an ongoing analysis of conflicts? Sorry I don't have the information that Pilots have regarding the conflict. Please don't derail the thread.

AMTMAN's -It looks like Rob has finally posted an addmission that there is something out there that contradicts his side of the story.
< http://pilotsfor911truth.org/AA757AMM.html >
Here's what he says.
Update 09/18/07: A new document has emerged on the internet through an anonymous source which orders the phones deactivated dated March 2002. This new document is not referenced in the above 757 AMM page as the deactivation order. The document contradicts American Airlines Customer Relations Representative Chad Kinder, American Airlines Public Relations Representative John Hotard who states the deactivation order was issued prior to 9/11/2001 and of course the above 757 AMM page. We are currently in the process of analyzing the conflicts and will update this article as more information becomes available.

 

[AMTMAN]

You want me to defend an ongoing analysis of conflicts? Sorry I don't have the information that Pilots have regarding the conflict. Please don't derail the thread.

Sorry if you don't like it when someone points out your own hypocrisy.

 

[Drudgewire]

Sorry if you don't like it when someone points out your own hypocrisy.

I think he's a little confused about the definition of hypocrisy.

e: Oops, wrong twoofer.

 

[FactCheck]

Machinery saved people in WTC

By Dennis Cauchon and Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY

NEW YORK — The 16 people who escaped the burning top floors of the World Trade Center's south tower owe their lives to an unlikely hero: a row of giant elevator machines that shielded one stairway from destruction. About 2,000 people were on or above the floors hit by two hijacked jets Sept. 11. USA TODAY has identified only 16 survivors from those floors. These survivors were all in the south tower. They all used the same stairway. And they all made it out because an enormous elevator machine room happened to be located on the 81st floor, where the nose of the jet hit.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/17/stairway.htm

Why is this always left out of the conspiracy story??? I guess theirs no money to be made putting things in context is there.

Sorry but I get REALLY angry at people who insult my intelligence by lying about what dead people said. Especially the dead firemen of 9/11. They didn't ask to included in the conspiracy story.

 

[RedIbis]

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.

This is a very honest and encouraging post, exactly the type of dialogue I find most productive here. To the point:

It's just as silly to me if some kid in a black hoodie and a laptop calls himself a truther as someone labeling me a truther. I despise labels, they are an attempt to marginalize and perpetuate the false idea that a member of a group holds the same opinions as all of the other members. See the problem with this?

For example, is Dr. Frank Greening a truther? I would say he's an honest and thorough scientist who has presented some analysis that has supported the official story and other analysis which seriously calls into question the NIST report. So is he a half truther?

I certainly welcome a thread that asks for errors concerning Gravy's research. Gravy himself has already referred, linked and corrected a very serious error on his part that I brought to his attention. In fact, this one error laid to waste his entire premise and thusly the thread itself.

Perhaps, those calling for me to present such errors will take a look at that exchange and be cautious about deferring to a researcher who admittedly makes mistakes, big mistakes.

There can be no argument here that Gravy is given special prominence. Just look at his face on the banner advertising the Florida conference and his stickied threads.

There is a danger in this. He's not superhuman. In fact his research is condescending, often inaccurate, and as SwingDangler has so effectively pointed out, not much more than subjective interpretation for the reader. As soon as he is contested, he will put that poster on ignore.

And until Gravy can source his claim that Rodriguez was a hundred feet from the collapse of the tower, this is an error as well.

It is exactly this type of post and these exchanges which explain my signature.

 

[jhunter1163]

Gravy himself has already referred, linked and corrected a very serious error on his part that I brought to his attention. In fact, this one error laid to waste his entire premise and thusly the thread itself.

Would that those who question the official story showed such intellectual honesty. Instead, they repeat the same debunked points over and over, completely ignoring the evidence that contradicts them.

Perhaps, those calling for me to present such errors will take a look at that exchange and be cautious about deferring to a researcher who admittedly makes mistakes, big mistakes.

There can be no argument here that Gravy is given special prominence. Just look at his face on the banner advertising the Florida conference and his stickied threads.

There is a danger in this. He's not superhuman. In fact his research is condescending, often inaccurate, and as SwingDangler has so effectively pointed out, not much more than subjective interpretation for the reader. As soon as he is contested, he will put that poster on ignore.

And until Gravy can source his claim that Rodriguez was a hundred feet from the collapse of the tower, this is an error as well.

It is exactly this type of post and these exchanges which explain my signature.

I don't believe that anyone defers to Gravy here. He claimed that Okanogan County was the third largest county in the US in the thread below. This was incorrect, and was almost immediately pointed out to him.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100370

Perhaps a trivial example, but it shows that no one's word is taken here, not even the mighty Gravy.

 

[Mooseman]

How about a thread with only the better posts of Red, Swing and the other CTer"s?
Tastfully done of course with all due respect given. What will the claims look like?

 

[RedIbis]

Would that those who question the official story showed such intellectual honesty.

Nicely put with archaic construction. Are you from England or have had a very formal education? Honestly curious, sorry for the quick derail.

 

[jhunter1163]

From Swing's post #65: Source: The 9/11 Digital Archive

Contributed by: Arturo Griffith
Contributor's location on 9/11: Freight Elevator
Contributor's local union affiliation:
Contributed on: September 17, 2001

Arturo Griffith was in a freight elevator when the building was attacked. The elevator dropped to B1 (the basement level), fell below the landing. He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him.
'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.'

'I couldn't walk. When they were getting' me out, I tried to stand up three times, but I kept fallin'. I didn't realize that my knee was fractured. When I got out of the building, I wanted to go back in to find my wife. But I was on a stretcher. I couldn't move.'

Arturo's wife, Carmen Griffith, was also on an elevator that morning. Having just dropped off 6 people at Cantor Fitzgerald, Carmen's elevator was on the way down with several passengers in tow. Suddenly, the entire elevator shook. The car stopped on the 78th floor. The doors would not open. Carmen and the passengers pried the doors open. When Carmen stepped out to check the floor, a ball of fire rolled through the hallway.

Carmen dropped to the floor and rolled about in an effort to extinguish the flames. Onlookers helped to douse the flames with their jackets. Carmen suffered 2nd degree burns on her face, head, legs and arms. 'Another worker helped Carmen get out,' Arturo said.

'Arlene Charles helped my wife walk down the stairs. Carmen has asthma, so it wasn't just the burns. With all the smoke, she couldn't hardly breathe. Arlene got her to the 40th floor. But Carmen couldn't walk any more. So, firemen took her the rest of the way down. When she got outside, she wanted to go back in to look for me. Thank God the firemen wouldn't let her back in the building. They took my wife to Long Island College Hospital. It was a while before we knew we were okay.'

Speaking from his bed at St. Vincent's Hospital, Arturo talked about his thoughts during the disaster. 'When I was in the elevator, I saw death in front of me. And I was sure that my wife was gone. I didn't think that I would ever see her again. I thank God for saving me and my wife.'

Cite as: Arturo Griffith , Story #54, The September 11 Digital Archive, 17 September 2001, <http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/54>.
Archival Information: 455 words, 2420 characters

Posted here in its entirety.

It does appear to say what Swing says it does; an explosion occurred some time after the impact, long enough for Griffith to get pulled out and for the rescuers to go back and get the woman out. I could not find the corresponding quote in Gravy's WTC paper.

 

[beachnut]

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.

The real reason you can not participate in this thread is due to the lack of facts. So stop complaining and start producing.

 

[jhunter1163]

Red:

I'm from Connecticut and haven't had a classical education. I just like archaic constructions better than modern ones.

 

[RedIbis]

The real reason you can not participate in this thread is due to the lack of facts. So stop complaining and start producing.

Keep reading.