Support 911Blogger


Mark Roberts, an Apologist for EPA Lies

by Justin A. Martell

The following is a paper I wrote several months ago. I have updated it with a new afterward that responds to the criticisms that the paper received from both Roberts and the rest of his cronies in the "debunking movement."

Here's a claim made by the man that his fellow "debunkers" call the "scourge" of the "Debunking Movement." Roberts posted the statement below on 11/5/07, in response to a fellow JREF poster mentioning the fact that New Yorkers and 9/11 Rescue Workers were told by the EPA that the air in lower Manhattan was safe to breath:

"Well, it's also completely false. No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." - Mark Roberts, in post 11,088 as Gravy on the JREF Forum, 11/05/07 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3125436%26postcount=13).

Lets us examine the validity of this rather audacious statement. First, on September 12th, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman released an internal memo which said that all EPA statements to the media needed to "be cleared with the Nation Security Council." With that established, a 2006 article written by the Union of Concerned Scientists chronicles the first of many deceitful statements made by the EPA:

"The EPA wasted little time in assuring New York residents and rescue workers that the area surrounding ground zero was safe. On September 13, 2001, just two days after the attacks, the agency issued a press release in which it explained "sampling of bulk materials and dust found generally low levels of asbestos. The levels of lead, asbestos and volatile organic compounds in air samples taken Tuesday in Brooklyn, downwind from the World Trade Center site, were not detectable or not of concern." [1]

There it is. The EPA told New Yorkers and rescue workers just two days after the Twin Towers were literally pulverized, that the dust which contained asbestos, concrete, Freon, lead and other heavy metals from computers, mercury from fluorescent lights, dioxins from nylon carpets and insulation, radioactive material from smoke detectors, human beings, and everything else that was in those buildings, was safe to breathe! One could argue that perhaps they were reporting the best information they had at the time. The EPA then released a second statement on September 18th. This five day period would surely have given the EPA enough time to properly analyze their data and retract any false information that they may have released. However, in this September 18th press release, EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman was quoted as saying:

"We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air quality and drinking water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances." [2]

It can still be argued that the EPA's data was actually showing that the dust from the collapsed buildings was not harmful. That appears not to be true, the EPA's Inspector General made a rather disturbing statement in a report titled "EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Collapses: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement:"

"EPA's early public statements following the collapse of the WTC towers reassured the public regarding the safety of the air outside the Ground Zero area. However, when EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was "safe" to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement. At that time, air monitoring data was lacking for several pollutants of concern, including particulate matter and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Furthermore, The White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones." [3]

In case there is any confusion as to whether or not the EPA's statements were misleading, this excerpt from EPA Whistle Blower Dr. Cate Jenkins' commentary on the report quoted above should settle it:

9/14/01...EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman is quoted by Newsweek saying that the smoke plume at the World Trade Center disaster site is “not a health problem.”[4]

But why would they lie? Here's another excerpt from the EPA's performance report:

"Competing considerations, such as national security concerns and the desire to reopen Wall Street, also played a role in EPA's air quality statements." [5]

One would think that the EPA would put the concerns of people and the environment over the political concerns of the White House. However, that turns out not to be true. The EPA allowed the White House to alter their statements to the public, these alterations made the EPA's statements misleading and false. An examination of the EPA's statements that were censored by the White House also prove to be very alarming:

9/13/01 EPA DRAFT RELEASE STATEMENT:

EPA "Testing terrorized sites for environmental hazards."

9/13/01 EPA DRAFT WHITE HOUSE CHANGE:

EPA "Reassures public about environmental hazards."

9/16/01 EPA DRAFT RELEASE STATEMENT:

"Recent samples of dust on Water Street show higher levels of asbestos."

9/16/01 EPA DRAFT WHITE HOUSE CHANGE:

"New samples confirm...ambient air quality meets OSHA [Government] standards...not a cause for public concern"

In addition to that change, the white completely omitted the following statement from the 9/16 EPA Draft Release:

"Air samples raise concerns for cleanup workers and office workers near Water Street."
As a result of these manipulations, by the year 2006, 70% of those who assisted in the clean-up at Ground Zero had developed respiratory problems.[5] More people will die post 9/11 from illnesses related to the air quality than on 9/11 itself. The White House manipulated the EPA's statements so that they assured people that the air was safe to breath, which was known not to be true. Just in case you don't see where I'm going with this I will provide for you the definition of the word "lie:"

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. [6]

Essentially the White House ordered the EPA to lie and the EPA caved in. It is stunning that a man like Mark Roberts, who claims to be on the side of evidence and research, could proclaim that no one lied about the air quality at Ground Zero. Why would he do this? Shouldn't this be an aspect of 9/11 that both "Truthers" and "Debunkers" could confront? Apparently not for Mark Roberts, who claims that the 9/11 Truth Movement has an agenda, while ignoring the fact that he has an agenda of his own which is proving that no American government officials participated in any deceitful or unscrupulous behavior in regard to 9/11. No one lied about the air quality at Ground Zero, Mark? Interesting...I thought I was the "fantasist."

[1]http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity...-pollution.html
[2]http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b...c8?OpenDocument
[3], [5]http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2003/WTC_report_20030821.pdf
[4]http://www.nycosh.org/environment_wtc/Jenkins-7-4-03-documentary-d.pdf
[6]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14681710/
[7]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie

Afterward:

In the aftermath of the release of this article, Roberts tried to make himself look better by telling me I was wrong because no one released a statement saying that the air at Ground Zero, specifically, was "safe to breathe." For a man who prides himself on his critical thinking skills, it would appear as though he has a serious problem comprehending point logic. Here is an excerpt from a conversation I had with 9/11 First Responder and founder of the FealGood Foundation, John Feal (Feal was severely injured after working clean-up at Ground Zero for just five days and no leads an organization dedicated to helping the ailing first responders. For more information on him and his efforts visit www.fealgoodfoundation.com or http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=296):

Martell: So after the EPA made these statements, was the general attitude just "well they said the air was safe so we don't need to worry about wearing anything?"

Feal: Absolutely.

The EPA made blanketed statements about Lower Manhattan as a whole, which includes Ground Zero. The rescue workers working at the site looked to the EPA press releases for information about the dust that they were breathing in. Those EPA press releases contained false and misleading information that downplayed the danger of the toxic dust. As a result, the rescue workers did not proceed with the caution that they should have (there's also evidence that had they even wanted to wear the proper protective gear, they would not have been able to because it wasn't even made available to them). Because of their misleading press releases the EPA did not have to deal with concerned rescue workers, thus making the clean up process and the re-opening of Wall Street go much faster than it would had their statements been accurate.

I'd also like to post a question that I sent to Mark Roberts via email (nyctours@gmail.com) on 1/31/2008:

The 9/11 Truth Movement was originally started by several courageous 9/11 victims family members who had real questions about what happened to their loved ones on 9/11. I'm sure you're aware that these family members, who were responsible for the creation and oversight of the 9/11 Commission have released statements in which the called the report "utterly hollow" and questioned the "entire veracity" of the report? Ultimately, the 9/11 Commission's Family Steering Committee said that 70% of their questions were not answered (as I'm sure you know.)

Mark, do you think the families of 9/11 deserve to have their questions answered about the 9/11 attacks? If you think they had their questions answered then why are they still asking questions, and why is their a list of unanswered questions on the 9/11 Family Steering Committee website, and what is this report on those unanswered questions by the families? Several of your fellow "debunkers" have suggested that the number of family members that question the 9/11 Commission Report is small. That's true, they number 4, but they are the 4 that got the other families motivated to ask for an investigation the Bush Administration clearly didn't want. They are the 4 that monitored the commission, that, along with the 9/11 family steering committee, gave the 9/11 commission 100's of well researched questions, that worked alongside the staffers of the 9/11 Commission, etc... etc... They know what it is they're talking about Mark, no matter how many of them there are.

You have made it your mission to suppress efforts to have their questions answered. In your words, "people who stand up for the truth don't do that."

As of today, 2/10/08, Roberts has not answered whether he thinks the family members deserve to have their questions answered. Does this, coupled with trying to make excuses for the lies of the EPA, sound like the actions of someone who is actually committed to the "truth" about 9/11?

STUDENT SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
http://www.SST911.ORG

Regarding JREF...

A little off topic, but not that far off... frequently, 9/11 skeptics are accused of "profiteering" when it comes to 9/11.

Well, check this out;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&fo...

Interesting.

Mark Roberts must be getting

Mark Roberts must be getting paid good money to shill for the OCT. He has something like 12-13 thousand posts on JREF (since mid 2006), he spends time trolling many other sites, from Loose Change to YouTube, and he spends every Saturday at Ground Zero counterprotesting the movement. In other words, just about all of his "free time" (if he even really is a NYC tour guide at all) seems to be aimed at attempting to counter the movement and trying to neutralize its arguments.

Documents: Feds, City Knew Of Ground Zero Toxins

Part II -- Memo: NYC Reopened WTC Area Despite EPA Warning

Source: wcbstv.com

Marcia Kramer
9/7/2006

(CBS) NEW YORK CBS 2 Exclusive: Stunning proof has been uncovered that the government knowingly put New Yorkers in harm's way after 9/11.

CBS 2 News has obtained documents revealing that Lower Manhattan was reopened a few weeks following the attack even though the air was not safe.

The two devastating memos, written by the U.S. and local governments, show they knew. They knew the toxic soup created at Ground Zero was a deadly health hazard. Yet they sent workers into the pit and people back into their homes.

One of the memos, from the New York City health department, dated Oct. 6, 2001, noted: "The mayor's office is under pressure from building owners ... in the Red Zone to open more of the city." The memo said the Department of Environmental Protection was "uncomfortable" with opening the areas but, "The mayor's office was directing the Office of Emergency Management to open the target areas next week."

"Not only did they know it was unsafe, they didn't heed the words of more experienced people that worked for the city and E.P.A.," said Joel Kupferman, with the group Environmental Justice Project.

Another part of the memo noted: "The E.P.A. has been very slow to make data results available and to date has not sufficiently informed the public of air quality issues arising from this disaster."

"Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me," said health protestor Yuichi Tamamo. "For the last five years we've been saying air quality here has been horrible."

It also doesn't suprise Carmen Flores, who lives in an apartment in the Baruch Houses that was engulfed in the 9/11 toxic plume. Her health has deteriorated and she has multiple medicines.

"I feel forgotten," she said.

Bruce Sprague, an E.P.A. official in the New York and New Jersey region during 9/11 admited to CBS 2 News the agency was finding alarming air quality readings at Ground Zero and in the surrounding areas.

Sprague said the E.P.A. had written much more conservative health assessments, but the memos had to go to Washington. And when the White House got its hands on them, they -- according to Sprague -- softened them.

The city health department refused to comment on the memo, but inside sources told CBS 2 News the memo is real. And its veracity is not questioned by the Environmental Justice Project's Kupferman.

He calls it "a smoking gun."


Who Is? Archives

Good work, Justin. Pls

Good work, Justin.
Pls consider submitting your work to the Journal of 9/11 Studies as a letter. (You may wish to include some input from excellent comments here also.)

Justin...

You sound like someone else I know, but I can't quite place it.


Who Is? Archives

Hmmm...

No Mark Roberts comments? Was he smacked (rightly so) with the ban hammer?

I experienced his neglect to address information first hand via email. The email was in response to a PDF from his so called debunking site.

My email to Mark is as follows:

*************************************

" Did firefighters abandon their fallen brothers to help Larry
Silverstein demolish a skyscraper that had sustained minor
damage and fires?

9/11 "Truth Movement" leaders gather at Ground Zero
and accuse Silverstein of murder and the FDNY of a
heinous crime and cover-up.

Do their claims stand up to examination? "

I had a chance to watch the two HardFire debates with you and Richard Gage today, so I took the time to look up your site. I had to google what you told the audience - "World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement" because you didn't give a real web page address, which is www.911myths.com. When doing so, your PDF with the cover page I quote above was the first return.

Throughout my own research, I have never come across any real truth movement members that are accusing firefighters of being apart of some cover-up. Do you work for BBC? They feel the same way. However, I have come across cointelpro agents and their loyal parrots who falsely accuse firefighters and police of being part of a cover-up. These agents and parrots are the creators of the "no-plane", "911 was a Jew job", "energy beam weapon", "nuke inside towers", theories. I notice you just had to bring up the nuke theory at the very end of the debate. I find that quite interesting. These theories were created to divide and conquer the truth movement. Only cointelpro and their loyal parrots refer to these theories. Their goal is to discredit the entire movement by associating posers who label themselves as a member of the truth movement, but also believe in these straw man theories.

We do however, accuse Larry Silverstein of taking part (a real investigation will answer how, exactly) in the destruction of the WTC. Like Richard Gage said, "you don't need to know how or why the crime was committed to start an investigation." Do you deny the fact people can be corrupted? Do you deny the existence of crime? If you answered no, you're lying to yourself. How is it that you seem to think you have all the answers to our questions? I mean, you're a tour guide! and you're attacking Richard Gage and others who actually have the qualifications and experience to ask such questions? You accuse Richard of scheming us all to make money? The people you protect steal money from you every day!! And if you don't pay, they put you in jail!! They put fluoride in your water and mercury in your vaccines... Who's criminal here? You! For being an ignorant prick!

We have the facts and we will bring the truth to light. And when that day comes, and it will, you will be known as the fool who tried to stop the "Truth Movement" from bringing justice to those who are truly responsible for 911 and the deaths of the first responders who died, and are still dying.

TgW

*************************************

His response:

*************************************

I am not surprised that you missed the fact the my website address was repeatedly shown beneath my name during those two shows: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/

The paper you refer to is just one of several thousand items there, and has been substantially updated. The 9/11 "Truth" movement has made a few hundred significant claims in the past few years, none of which have been true. Don't believe me? Then name a significant claim that you get right, and prove it.

When you come up with anything I get provably wrong, let me know. I'll be glad to make the changes. Do your best to be a rational adult and focus on facts, not paranoia.

Sincerely,
Mark

*************************************

His site is based on how he perceives the information (semantics if you will) that was stated in the references provided in his attempts to debunk the truth movement. I question that a loan NYC tour guide has taken it upon himself to protect the establishment that poisons his water and steals his money through illegal taxation. Oh he has no comment on those facts. In light of these facts, how can anyone in their right mind protect the establishment?

I wonder if he knows that nut case who attacked WeAreChange at ground zero? I wouldn't doubt they both collaborated in the firecracker attack on the recruitment center in NYC to blame it on WeAreChange.

Whether he knows it or not, Mark Roberts is a tool of the NWO.