Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[DGM]

Excellent point. Perhaps you should ask Gravy why he left it out. Will you?

Are you suggesting there was an explosion prior to impact?

I shouldn't throw stones?? LOL. I didn't write a hit piece on William Rod, Mark did. Check the title of the thread again.

For your benefit, I will edit the comment but I don't think I can.

Swing:
Why did you not deal with the error in your last post before you moved on? That is very deceptive.

Thanks again for proving Kevin Ryan correct.

An edit or retraction would suffice for your mistake.

Thanks again for proving Kevin Ryan correct.

????????????

As far as the rest of your claims. If I find problems yes I will ask Gravy to explain or correct them. Why wouldn't I? I'm sure he would want to know about errors in his work.

Now I have lots to do this afternoon so I will review the rest of your post later.

 

[Norseman]

..................
Now in light of the facts, lets re-examine Gravy's original comment:
if a person was close enough to a demolition charge or large high explosive to be burned by it, he or she would also be blown apart by it.

It appears that a person can indeed be burned by a high explosive but not be blown apart.

Yet again another one of Mark Robert's factual errors pointed out by Swing.

No Swing Dangler, Mark Robert's understanding of high explosives is entirely correct. If you read the whole paper, as it looks like you did, you will see that it discusses all types of explosions caused by rapid chemical conversions (not nuclear). And it also lists all the types of injuries these explosions can cause on a human body. And if you read it carefully you will see that burn injuries are not something that is associated with high explosives like TNT and RDX.

Burn injuries are associated with low order explosives that deflagrates and does not create a supersonic shock wave like high explosives:

The explosion from low-order devices lacks the overpressure
wave; thus, injuries are due to ballistics (fragmentation),
blast wind from the expansion of the gases, and
thermal injuries from the heat of the explosion.

Page 5 Blast Injuries

And with vapor cloud explosions (thermobaric or fuel air explosives). This part of the report is quiet relevant regarding the jet fuel that went down the elevator shafts, a couple of noteworthy quotes from that part of the report:

The blast effects from vapor cloud explosions are
determined not only by the amount of fuel, but more
importantly by the combustion mode of the cloud. Most
vapor cloud explosions are deflagrations, not detonations. Flame speed of a deflagration is subsonic, with flame speed increasing in restricted areas and decreasing in open areas.

Likewise, since the temperature of the burning fuel is greater than that of conventional explosives, extensive burns can occur in survivors.

Page 5 and 6 Blast Injuries

Extensive burns like what happened to the unfortunate victims that happened to stand close to the elevator shafts inside the WTC towers when fire balls burst out of the shafts.

 

[Gravy]

This is quite simple to test: stand close enough to a stick of TNT to be burned when it detonates, and see if the burns are the greatest of your worries.

If you were close enough to these blasts to be burned, how else would you be feeling?
(There's a naughty word at the end of this video)

 

[CptColumbo]

This is quite simple to test: stand close enough to a stick of TNT to be burned when it detonates, and see if the burns are the greatest of your worries.

If you were close enough to these blasts to be burned, how else would you be feeling?
(There's a naughty word at the end of this video)

Remember the first rule of not being seen, not standing up.

 

[Corsair 115]

This is quite simple to test: stand close enough to a stick of TNT to be burned when it detonates, and see if the burns are the greatest of your worries.

If you were close enough to these blasts to be burned, how else would you be feeling?
(There's a naughty word at the end of this video)

"They blowed up good. They blowed up real good!"

 

[jhunter1163]

Remember the first rule of not being seen, not standing up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zekiZYSVdeQ

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

 

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

I thought this was going to be called "The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread"?

 

[Hokulele]

I thought this was going to be called "The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread"?

Why?

 

[LashL]

Why?

Hazarding a guess here: because the *cough* "princess" is a twoofer guy posing as a chick on teh (damn, that's hard for me to type) interwebs (so is that) for fun and amusement.

Just a guess, though. I could, of course, be wrong.

 

[XenaWarriorPrincess]

Hazarding a guess here: because the *cough* "princess" is a twoofer guy posing as a chick on teh (damn, that's hard for me to type) interwebs (so is that) for fun and amusement.

Just a guess, though. I could, of course, be wrong.

Dude... this has been dealt with.

Not every person in the "truth" movement is male. And not every female who posts at a forum is a guy claiming to be a girl.

I came to this forum because a very good friend of mine (even though he is a SKEPTIC) posts here. I was also interested in reviewing information as there are days that I have doubts. The members here have been so rude that it has served to reinforce my opinion of skeptics. Rather than being nice and providing information that could have possibly swayed my opinion, instinctually you all attacked.

 

[Hokulele]

Dude... this has been dealt with.

FYI, LashL isn't a dude.

 

[Sporanox]

I came to this forum because a very good friend of mine (even though he is a SKEPTIC) posts here. I was also interested in reviewing information as there are days that I have doubts. The members here have been so rude that it has served to reinforce my opinion of skeptics. Rather than being nice and providing information that could have possibly swayed my opinion, instinctually you all attacked.

Can't you see how truthers' dodging and semantic sarcasm wears on everybody's nerves at the end of the day?

The information is all over the place for you. Do a search and you'll find all the debunking you need to prove the conspiracy movement wrong.

Or did you come to this forum just to plead for peace and justice in the "mean skeptic" community? Because you sure don't say anything specific about the evidence...

 

[uk_dave]

We're all such bad people.

 

[Magenta]

I came to this forum because a very good friend of mine (even though he is a SKEPTIC) posts here. I was also interested in reviewing information as there are days that I have doubts. The members here have been so rude that it has served to reinforce my opinion of skeptics. Rather than being nice and providing information that could have possibly swayed my opinion, instinctually you all attacked.

Why rely on other people to sway your opinion? Wouldn't a better option be to assess the evidence yourself and make up your own mind?

 

[Gravy]

Xena, you have repeatedly posted here to make snide remarks about me.

Is Mark Roberts the Dylan Avery of this forum? I have never seen so many people kiss ass like this before, except at LCF.

It doesn't bother me. However, I do find it quite curious. Mark Roberts is infamous among my circles, so to see the adoration here surprises me. Some of the comments were funny, but all of it reminded me of the way the Loose Change fan club idolizes boy wonder. It may be different, but it is certainly similar.

As I said no offense intended. I really thought it was a joke...

I was curious if Roberts ran this forum, I guess that he is just the David Koresh or Ron Hubbard around here. He certainly sounds like "an all around good guy."

Thank you Mark.

I do have many, many questions for you. The most important one involves your signature:
Phil Jayhan is the champion of the pod theory... what else could you expect?

You didn't like the cult leader status comparison? I thought it was funny. At least I didn't compare you to Phil Jayhan.

I compared Mark Roberts to a "cult leader" not the great James Randi and I was kidding. Relax.

I whole heartely agree with your interpretation of boy wonder. Try and be objective though, the comparison is absolutely similar. You guys worship "Gravy" like LCF worships Golden Boy, PERIOD. No offense directed at Roberts. I have actually begun going through his work and some of it appears to be good. It has even made me question some of my beliefs, however some of it is driven by emotion and lacks evidence plain and simple. I am not here to argue, I am here to possibly learn something and to mock Dylan Avery.

You know I love your videos... I think they are hilarious. Especially that part where you say Mark Roberts is all around good guy.

Stop whining? I am merely responding to a thread on a forum. Am I not free to do so? Is this a skeptics only forum?

Speaking of whining Mark, you seem to be doing a very good job of that yourself. I have said that your research is driven by emotion. You want it to be true, so in your eyes it is. That is not evidence based.

But hey, you are an "all around good guy" so what do I know...

I find you rather rude and disrespectful Mark Roberts. What happened to being "an all around good guy"? If I offended you by asking if the "Mark Roberts Appreciation Thread" was a joke, then I apologize.

As far as starting a new thread, go for it Mark. I have no intention of wasting my time debunking your debunking though. I am an activist, not a researcher. What is important is that you enjoy your efforts and feel that you are making a positive contribution to society. What difference does it make if I like your work or think that it is driven by emotion? If you insist, however, I would be happy to review any research you send me and provide a thoughtful and objective critique. Do keep in my that I work full time and have a life.

If you are going to start the thread though, how about you title it " The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread?"

I'm on the edge of my seat Mark... how is it that you have so much inside information to members of the truth movement?

I thought this was going to be called "The Mark Roberts Depreciation Thread"?

Why you have chosen to behave this way, only you can say. Whining will not advance any argument you have to make about 9/11. I don't care what you think about me. I do care about the events of 9/11. Do you? You don't show it, and you haven't once attempted to discuss those events on this discussion forum.

Please be aware that you have a choice. No one is forcing you to behave this way. You can continue feebly whining about how much you dislike me and others, or you can behave like a rational adult and discuss and learn. Good luck with your decision.

 

[RedIbis]

Has Gravy ever provided a source for the claim that Rodriguez was 100 ft from the tower when it collapsed? The claim is made on the first page of his Escape Artist paper.

That's a big claim and without a source it's a big error.

 

[DGM]

Has Gravy ever provided a source for the claim that Rodriguez was 100 ft from the tower when it collapsed? The claim is made on the first page of his Escape Artist paper.

That's a big claim and without a source it's a big error.

Isn't that from an interview he did with Rodriguez himself?

 

[pomeroo]

Dude... this has been dealt with.

Not every person in the "truth" movement is male. And not every female who posts at a forum is a guy claiming to be a girl.

I came to this forum because a very good friend of mine (even though he is a SKEPTIC) posts here. I was also interested in reviewing information as there are days that I have doubts. The members here have been so rude that it has served to reinforce my opinion of skeptics. Rather than being nice and providing information that could have possibly swayed my opinion, instinctually you all attacked.

The information that could--no, would--change the opinion of anyone sincerely seeking answers is abundant and is available in profusion here and on other sites, such as the invaluable 911myths.com and debunking911.com. If our impatience with obtuseness causes you to want to remain in error, well, several obvious conclusions spring to mind, but you already know what they are.

 

[RedIbis]

Isn't that from an interview he did with Rodriguez himself?

I asked for the source and was told that Rodriguez said it many times on cable access and other shows. I said, ok, what's the source. Any cable show can be sourced, simply provide the date, time, channel, and preferably the time stamp that the quote is made.

I think I was then called a denialist and a liar and Gravy put me on ignore.