A Gravy Paper: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist

[RedIbis]

Run away RedIbis, run boy! And IGNORE THE QUESTION, because the answer makes you look bad!

That's not likely to happen.

Apparently, what upsets some folks here is that I don't dance like a monkey when you try to get me to answer your leading questions.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's not likely to happen.

Apparently, what upsets some folks here is that I don't dance like a monkey when you try to get me to answer your leading questions.

How is it a leading question? I clearly spelled out why it was a yes/no question; and the implications of each answer.

It is either (a) a valid criticism or (b) a red herring. Why are you refusing to assist in resolving which it is? Scratch that, I don't give a rat's ass why. Just answer the question with regard to the use of the quote in the paper.

 

[RedIbis]

How is it a leading question? I clearly spelled out why it was a yes/no question; and the implications of each answer.

It is either (a) a valid criticism or (b) a red herring. Why are you refusing to assist in resolving which it is? Scratch that, I don't give a rat's ass why. Just answer the question with regard to the use of the quote in the paper.

This is the last thing I'm saying about this because it's a waste of time.

You're not asking a sincere question. You set up two very narrow possibilities and ask me to choose. Sorry, like I said, I don't dance like a monkey for you.
It reminds me of the Colbert bit, "Bush: great president or greatest president?"

It's a simple exercise. Gravy makes a claim. I ask him to provide the source. He doesn't.

I pointed out that his hypothesis that the same event which injures Arturo Griffith is not the same as what produced the fireball observed in the elevator shaft. I just spelled this out about two posts above.

 

[mortimer]

The only conclusion I can draw from RedIbis' answers to questions put forth is that there were demolition charges going on throughout the tower more than an hour and a half before the collapse. INSIDE JOBBUSHDIDIT!!!!thirteen1!

 

[Civilized Worm]

Again, Gravy made what is in mind a very important claim, Mr. Rodriguez's location at the time of the collapse, I'd just like to know where he got this from.

What's so important about it? What does it have to do with Rodriguez ever changing story?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

This is the last thing I'm saying about this because it's a waste of time.

You're not asking a sincere question. You set up two very narrow possibilities and ask me to choose. Sorry, like I said, I don't dance like a monkey for you.
It reminds me of the Colbert bit, "Bush: great president or greatest president."

Just because there are only two choices does not mean that it must necessarily be a false choice fallacy. Either the quote is relevant to the conclusions in the paper; or it is not. There is no in-between.

It's a simple exercise. Gravy makes a claim. I ask him to provide the source. He doesn't.

Yes, but what is at issue is if the quote (not claim) that Gravy has in the paper is necessary for any of the conclusions in the paper. If the quote can be removed from the paper, in its entirety, then whether it is sourced or not is moot; as the quote is superfluous to the paper.

I pointed out that his hypothesis that the same event which injures Arturo Griffith is not the same as what produced the fireball observed in the elevator shaft. I just spelled this out about two posts above.

I didn't ask you to make assumptions or draw conclusions of the intent of the quote; I asked you to source where the quote was used in the paper to draw a conclusion. These are vastly different things.

You may have a legitimate critique as to the relevance of the quote to the contents of the paper; however, if you are unable or unwilling to partake in the process of determining it then I am left with little choice but to relegate your statements about it to nothing more than your opinion.

Your claims that you are merely refusing to be manipulated amount to little more than hand-waving. You want give-and-take? I've already given you the benefit of the doubt that your criticism may have merit and should be discussed to resolution. Try returning the favor and take part in the process in a manner that is honest and not obtuse.

 

[RedIbis]

Your claims that you are merely refusing to be manipulated amount to little more than hand-waving. You want give-and-take? I've already given you the benefit of the doubt that your criticism may have merit and should be discussed to resolution. Try returning the favor and take part in the process in a manner that is honest and not obtuse.

You are correct. I refuse to be manipulated.

This is the first time that I've read anything resembling civility or an admission of merit.

I did not say that Gravy's paper is wrong from beginning to end, and he may raise valid points. I made two observations. I was honestly curious to know where the info for Rodriguez's location at the time of collapse is. I think that's significant. You don't. I'm ready to move on.

I understand that one false or unsubstantiated claim does not render an entire position invalid. I just thought it would be helpful to have the source. I forget how your question was phrased, but I think I just answered it.

Now, if that answers your question I hope that you might accept the challenge of a question. Mine will not require simply a yes or no answer.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
I did not say that Gravy's paper is wrong from beginning to end

I never said, or implied, that you did.

. . . I was honestly curious to know where the info for Rodriguez's location at the time of collapse is.

As am I.

I think that's significant.

As do I.

You don't.

I never said, or implied, this. What I said was the quote may not be significant to the paper in question.

. . . I understand that one false or unsubstantiated claim does not render an entire position invalid.

Good, we certainly agree here.

I just thought it would be helpful to have the source. I forget how your question was phrased, but I think I just answered it.

Fair enough, though I would still like to see the quote sourced as a matter of good documentation.

Now, if that answers your question I hope that you might accept the challenge of a question. Mine will not require simply a yes or no answer.

Time permitting, I'll do what I can to answer.

 

[Gravy]

Yes, but what is at issue is if the quote (not claim) that Gravy has in the paper is necessary for any of the conclusions in the paper. If the quote can be removed from the paper, in its entirety, then whether it is sourced or not is moot; as the quote is superfluous to the paper.

Anyway, he's lying. In my response to him I told him the source of that inconsequential statement: William Rodriguez. There's a photo of me speaking with Rodriguez on the first page of the paper. I suggested that RedIbis contact him with his own questions. I don't know why people continue to deal with this blatant liar.

 

[RedIbis]

Time permitting, I'll do what I can to answer.

I think we're on to something, sir. I hope we both get answers to the questions we agree on.

Does Mr. Griffith's account suggest that there is a significant amount of time between the event which dropped the freight elevator and the fireball reported after the "woman" was rescued?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Anyway, he's lying. In my response to him I told him the source of that inconsequential statement: William Rodriguez. There's a photo of me speaking with Rodriguez on the first page of the paper. I suggested that RedIbis contact him with his own questions. . .

The catch is, I think, (s)he is choosing not to take your word that it came from an interview between Rodriguez and yourself and is looking for some sort of further corroboration.

Just as if RedIbis were to follow your suggestion and contact Rodriguez and then proceed to return here and state that Rodriguez denies any such interview took place.

However, all of this merely bolsters my point that the quote is not needed by any claim or conclusion in the paper and is added for context or for other (non-formal logic) reasons.

So, we've, more or less, concluded that the source of the quote in question; or, more importantly, the quote itself; is not substantive to the paper. Therefore, the quote cannot be construed as any sort of error of fact or logic in the paper (in as much as grammatical error could be equated to either).

 

[RedIbis]

Anyway, he's lying...I don't know why people continue to deal with this blatant liar.

How am I liar?

What lie did I commit? Please use the quote function.

If you're going to make such an outrageous charge from the comfort of your selective ignore list, at least back up what you say.

Otherwise, take a deep breath, we'll shake e-hands, and start all over again. I'm not a bad guy. I was born in NYC. We might get along just fine, as long as you're a Yankees fan.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think we're on to something, sir. I hope we both get answers to the questions we agree on.

Does Mr. Griffith's account suggest that there is a significant amount of time between the event which dropped the freight elevator and the fireball reported after the "woman" was rescued?

Could you refer me to a page number for that please?

 

[T.A.M.]

Red, I think the issue is somantic. The fact is that Mark got the info from Rodriguez. Your issue seems to be with the lack of citation stating as much in his actual paper. That is an issue YOU have with the paper. I do not think that in the scope of the paper's creation, or the relevance of the information to the project, this is an important matter...I do not think one needs to cite every little minutia detail one picks up in conversations with people and then places it in the paper...unless it is of importance to the paper. You seem to think it is...then fine, to you it is an oversight.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

The catch is, I think, (s)he is choosing not to take your word that it came from an interview between Rodriguez and yourself and is looking for some sort of further corroboration.

If this matters to him for some reason, and he won't believe me or Rodriguez, then he should take the time to listen to, to watch, and to read Rodriguez's interviews, which I have done. Rodriguez describes where he was and where he wound up. But RedIbis will do none of these things, because he's intellectually dishonest and deeply in denial. That's why I have him on ignore.

 

[RedIbis]

Could you refer me to a page number for that please?

That would be page 1 of Gravy's paper in the OP.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That would be page 1 of Gravy's paper in the OP.

The relevant section's

"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.' "

wording gives a connotation of a lengthy amount of time, however there is nothing that allows us to determine how much time passed between events.

Now, there are some calculations that could be done to give us a rough idea of what we might be looking at:

• How long would it take the fuel to fall from the impact point to the sub-basement?
• Where was the elevator when it failed and how long would it take to reach the sub-basement?
• How long did it take the rescuers to respond to the elevator having crashed?*
• How long did it take the rescuers to extract both individuals?*

* These should be tempered with the realization that, unless the rescuers were referring to a time-keeping device, their estimates on the times may be wildly off from reality.

 

[Gravy]

Another thing to add to your list, Arkan, is that not all the fuel that came down the shafts had to do so just after impact.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Another thing to add to your list, Arkan, is that not all the fuel that came down the shafts had to do so just after impact.

True, though I'd be more interested in establishing an absolute minimum time and then looking at mitigating factors.

 

[Norseman]

"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 suggest you check out the symptom's of concussion/unconsciousness. They include sensory problems, confusion, loss of time frame etc. This is a description of how Arturo experienced the situation. While the actual condition inside the elevator might have been better than Arturo perceived it to be due to his symptoms. And how difficult do you think it is to find a person just inside the door of a roughly 9*9 feet elevator car.

And you're trying to tell me, and I suppose what Gravy is trying to tell Rodriguez, is that this all happens before the fireball in the elevator shaft.

Yes, according to Arturo:

Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.

Source

And it fits with what we know happened technically when the aircraft hit the building and all the other witness accounts. You need to put what you read in to the overall context.